Sitting of 15 January 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  WALES

    Urban Deprivation
    Paul Flynn: What new proposals he has to assist deprived urban areas. [89725]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Peter Hain): The Government have designated the 360 most deprived areas in Wales as enterprise areas to boost jobs and enterprise, and our child tax credit and working tax credit will help to eradicate child poverty and to make work pay.
    Paul Flynn: That is absolutely true, but does the Secretary of State realise that, although the businesses in the rural part of my constituency that lost out financially because of the foot and mouth epidemic received generous grants from the Government, other businesses in the urban area that lost out because of closures and redundancies did not receive a penny? Does he also realise that the Government are about to spend more than £500 million keeping open post offices in the rural areas, and more than £100 million on closing them down in urban areas, and that the objective 1 map for Wales is heavily distorted against the interests of the cities, towns and valleys in Wales in favour of the least deprived areas? Is it not time that we had another look at our—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has heard enough to be able to answer the hon. Gentleman's question.
    Peter Hain: I understand the points made by my hon. Friend, but, as he will undoubtedly be aware, unemployment has fallen hugely in his constituency. Newport has some of the fastest growing companies in the United Kingdom, and last year it was one of the places with the highest proportion of companies growing by more than 25 per cent. He will also certainly have noted this morning's survey, which shows that the Welsh economy is outperforming the British economy in key areas of output and new orders.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: The Secretary of State must pay some heed to our deprived urban areas,
    664
    which are suffering greatly from an increase in crime and hard drug use. He must be well aware of the figures that show a 14 per cent. increase in hard drug use. Crack cocaine is responsible for 54 per cent. of all crime committed in urban areas. When a recent BBC poll asked people—64 per cent. of whom were Labour voters—whether they believed that the Government were tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, they said that they did not. Is it not time that the Government made our deprived urban areas safer places in which to live by taking a tougher stance on drug pushers and establishing a tougher sentencing regime, particularly for burglars?
    Peter Hain: It is nice to hear that the Conservatives want tough action against burglars, because they were responsible for burgling the Welsh economy and communities in Wales during every year that they were in power. Now, they are planning a 20 per cent. cut in public spending, which would reduce our effectiveness and our ability to implement exactly the kind of anti-crime measures that are needed in Newport and across Wales, and which we are implementing.
    Alan Howarth: Given the importance of manufacturing to deprived urban areas, will my right hon. Friend ensure that during the transition period before accession to full membership of the European Union, the Governments of countries in central and eastern Europe are not permitted to operate regimes that allow their manufacturers to have an unfair competitive advantage? I have in mind particularly the steel sector.
    Peter Hain: I understand my right hon. Friend's point, and the steel sector in Newport has indeed been a matter of great concern to its Members of Parliament and to the Government. It is important to recognise that we are undergoing a process of fundamental change. As he says, we are experiencing stiff competition from countries in eastern Europe, but also from countries even further to the east, notably China. However, Wales is doing much better than many of our competitors—in stark contrast to the Tory years, when we were doing much worse than the rest of the world.

    Farming
    Mr. David Cameron: If he will make a statement on the state of the farming industry in Wales. [89726]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend and I have regular meetings with the First Minister, and I meet Assembly Ministers and Ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to discuss a variety of issues, including the Welsh farming industry.
    Mr. Cameron: I thank the Minister for that answer, but what discussions have he and the Secretary of State had with farmers in Wales about the latest diktat from Brussels, whereby all horses, ponies and donkeys must have passports, which are to be carried with them at all times? Is the Minister aware that this crazy bureaucracy

    665
    has come about because the French want to know whether equine drugs are entering the food chain? Will he make the strongest possible representations to Brussels to stop this nonsense and tell the French that British horse owners will not stomach extra paperwork just to satisfy their deeply unsatisfactory eating habits?
    Mr. Touhig: Far be it from me to comment on the eating habits of our friends and neighbours across the channel. I take account of the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and I am sure that it will be brought to the attention of my colleagues at DEFRA. Welsh farmers have had a tough time, as we all know, but I was pleased to see the recent report from the Farmers Union of Wales that shows increased confidence in farming in Wales and a 40 per cent. increase in farming incomes. That is a good move in the right direction.
    Lembit Öpik: The Farmers Union of Wales has also highlighted the fact that the 20-day rule has added to the heavy bureaucratic burden that farmers in Wales and across the country have to deal with. Since the Welsh Assembly has not got the powers to address the bureaucratic burden and paperwork, is the Minister willing to accept a submission that may help him to have a debate with DEFRA to try to reduce that work load so that farmers can do what they want to do—farm?
    Mr. Touhig: I am always happy to receive submissions from the hon. Gentleman. I think that he has made quite a few to me since I have been in this job.
    On the 20-day standstill, we are trying to achieve a balance between risk and free trade. The standstill has been relaxed several times in the past year or so. The Government must consider the risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, and take account of scientific and veterinary advice. Until that process is complete, it is not possible to give any undertaking about changing the standstill period.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: May I, through the hon. Gentleman, congratulate the Secretary of State on having done rather well despite being a South African?
    On a slightly more serious note, I want to return to the 20-day rule. This Government are proud of the partnership with the National Assembly. Given that the National Assembly is adamant across the political spectrum that the 20-day rule is ruinous to Welsh agriculture, is it not time for Ministers to speak up for Welsh farming in Cabinet, reflect the views of people in the National Assembly, who have been voted in by the people of Wales, and do something about the crisis in Welsh agriculture?
    Mr. Touhig: Of course, if the hon. Gentleman's party had its way, there would be no Welsh voice in Cabinet or in this Parliament. Discussions are under way between colleagues in my office, DEFRA and the National Assembly in seeking, with the industry in Wales, to try to overcome some of the problems that farming faces, especially in terms of the 20-day rule. We would further complicate the whole process by simply making a decision to reduce the period without proper evidence.
    666
    When we have the proper scientific evidence, and the risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis are completed, we will be in a position to take a decision.
    Mr. Llwyd: When?
    Mr. Touhig: The hon. Gentleman asks when. When we have that information, it will be proper to take the decision. It would be irresponsible to do so without that evidence.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: The Minister is being disingenuous in saying that incomes have risen by 40 per cent. He knows that they started from a very low level and that the average farming income is less than £10,000 a year, while some highland livestock farmers earn less than £4,000. Farming communities are still reeling from low incomes and escalating costs, but we have learned that objective 1 money that was intended for farming communities may well be clawed back because it is not going to be spent. Will he have talks with his Welsh Assembly colleagues to ensure that the bureaucracy that surrounds the objective 1 money, which acts like a dead hand, is lifted from the schemes? Will he guarantee that no money directed towards these poor farming communities will be clawed back by Brussels this year?
    Mr. Touhig: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Yes, I accept that farming incomes have risen from a very low point, but that is a move in the right direction. The FUW survey showed that 52 per cent. of farmers in Wales are planning to invest in new machinery, stock and infrastructure on their farms, which is again a good signal. I understand his point, but as far as this Government are concerned, in partnership with our colleagues in the National Assembly, we have no intention of handing any money back to Brussels; it will all be spent.
    Mr. Evans: One reason why farming incomes declined so disastrously last year was the outbreak of foot and mouth. There is no way the farming community could withstand another outbreak of foot and mouth.
    The Minister will know that new rules on the importation of meat and other food products came into force on 1 January this year. Will he tell the House what action has been taken to publicise those new rules about the importation of meat and foodstuffs into the United Kingdom and what extra resources are going into providing the extra manpower and sniffer dogs that will be necessary to make our ports of entry secure?
    Mr. Touhig: We have to accept that DEFRA and our colleagues in the Assembly, in close contact with the farming unions in Wales, will ensure that all the appropriate information gets to farmers directly. It is important that we take every opportunity to ensure that they are aware of any changes. My experience, on the basis of knowing farmers in my constituency, is that farmers are very well up to speed on these matters and know what is happening.

    School Transport
    Mr. Huw Edwards: If he will meet the First Minister to discuss school transport. [89727]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I meet the First Minister to discuss a range of matters, including school transport.
    Mr. Edwards: Does my hon. Friend accept that the current law allows gross overcrowding on scheduled buses taking children to school and that, although overcrowding may have been a factor in the Vale of Glamorgan bus crash, it was within the legal limits? Does he agree that bus companies exploit the law and that local authorities enter into contracts in which overcrowding is in-built? Will he commend Monmouthshire county council for trying to address the problem? Does he agree that where Monmouthshire leads, the rest of the country should follow, although legislative action may well be needed?
    Mr. Touhig: I am sure that the entire House was profoundly saddened by the death of 12-year-old Stuart Cunningham Jones in a bus accident in Cowbridge just before Christmas, and our sympathies go to his family. I take note of my hon. Friend's point. Last year, he secured a debate in Westminster Hall on school transport that went some way in helping to overcome the problem in Monmouthshire. The three-for-two concession allows transport operators to have three children in a seat that, in normal circumstances, would take two people, but they must be sure that the children can physically sit in the seats. There is no statistical evidence that the concession puts children at greater risk, but new legislation ensures that since 1 October 2001 all new buses coming on to the road are fitted with seat belts, and that will lead to the death of the three-for two concession, to which I look forward.
    Mr. Roger Williams: Many school children in Wales still have to rely on their parents for transport to school because of the lack of public transport, and that increases congestion, road danger and CO2emissions. Will the Minister discuss with the First Minister whether all school children in Wales can have access to public transport to school?
    Mr. Touhig: There is a formula for funding public transport and children's transport to school, and, in Wales, local authorities have been generous in going beyond the formula and providing additional transport facilities. The Government are committed to a massive investment in public transport. In partnership with our colleagues in the Labour-led Assembly, that will benefit children, ensuring that they travel to school as safely as possible.

    Pensioners (Living Standards)
    Bob Spink: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on improving pensioner living standards in Wales. [89729]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Peter Hain): Regular ones. We want all pensioners to have a decent and secure income in retirement and to share fairly in the rising prosperity of Wales.
    Bob Spink: Is the Minister aware that the National Assembly is forcing local authorities to bear the costs of means-testing the elderly on the services that they provide to them? Does he agree that those costs will lead to cuts in services, and will he try to stop the National Assembly forcing those costs on to the local authorities?
    Peter Hain: No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The National Assembly is providing extra care for elderly citizens on top of free bus travel, free eye tests and all the other initiatives that have been taken by the Labour-led Assembly to support not just pensioners but all citizens in Wales.
    Kevin Brennan: I endorse what my right hon. Friend says, but will he look at another aspect of pensioner living standards in Wales, in particular the plight of the former Allied Steel and Wire workers from Cardiff? Will he join me in welcoming the fact that Celsa has announced that it will reopen the steel plant in Cardiff and create several hundred jobs? Will he pledge to use his considerable reputation as a fixer and problem solver to look at the whole issue of the loss of the occupational pensions of hundreds of workers from Cardiff?
    Peter Hain: I acknowledge the important points that my hon. Friend makes, and he will be involved in an important meeting next week with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to take the matter forward. The plight of the pensioners of Allied Steel and Wire in Cardiff is extremely important and we shall work hard to solve it.
    Hywel Williams: Are not pensioners in Wales doubly disadvantaged because they face an extended means test as a deliberate effect of Government policy but are also less able to contribute to occupational pensions because of the lower rate of economic activity among older workers in Wales, 61 per cent. of whom are economically active compared with 75 per cent. in London and the south-east?
    Peter Hain: We are injecting record help for pensioners in Wales. In October, an extra 250,000 pensioners in Wales will benefit from the pension tax credit, which will support thrifty, hard-working pensioners, some of whom have small savings or a small occupational pension. That is part of an increase in support that, by October, will bring pensioners in Wales between £21 and £30 extra on average a week. The hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that, and the fact that, if his plans for an independent Wales were ever introduced, all that support would disappear.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: My right hon. Friend will agree that, for pensioners in Wales and elsewhere,

    669
    an important part of their living standards is the quality of the health services that they receive. Will he confirm that the Commission for Health Improvement, established by the House to monitor the health service in England and Wales, will continue to do so independently for the foreseeable future?
    Peter Hain: Yes. I acknowledge the expertise of my hon. Friend, who is a former Welsh Minister, and I welcome his point. Discussions are going on with the Department of Health to resolve this issue.

    Miners' Pension Fund
    Huw Irranca-Davies: What discussions he has had with his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry on the renegotiation of the surpluses to the miners' pension fund. [89730]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): I am aware of this ongoing matter. Issues related to the current guarantee arrangements are under discussion by the Department of Trade and Industry and the trustees of the mineworkers pension scheme and the British Coal staff superannuation scheme. As a representative of an area in which many former miners live, I will certainly continue to take a keen interest in this matter.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank my hon. Friend for his response. I do not underestimate the influence of the Wales Office among his Cabinet colleagues. I therefore urge him to continue to push strongly on this issue so that we get more money back into the pockets of miners and their families and into the mining communities, too.
    Mr. Touhig: As the House will be aware, the Government guarantee that miners' pensions will rise in line with inflation even if the pension scheme were in deficit. The Government, of course, have a 50 per cent. share of the surplus from the pension scheme. Any changes to the pension scheme, as far as I am concerned, should benefit the pensioners, the miner pensioners and their widows. That should be our top priority.

    Rail Services
    Mr. Chris Bryant: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues regarding rail services in former mining constituencies. [89731]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Peter Hain): Regular discussions. We are determined to deliver better rail services.
    Mr. Bryant: I know that my right hon. Friend is aware that the rail operators in Wales seem to find it impossible to provide a decent railway service after rugby matches at the millennium stadium. Is he also aware that the last train leaving Cardiff for the valleys is at 10.30 pm, well before most shows at the new millennium centre will finish? Is not it time that we banged some more heads together to make sure that the millennium centre does
    670
    not become a millennium matinee centre and that English people do not find it impossible to attend matches at the best stadium in the country?
    Peter Hain: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, last night, I was told by both the chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority and the Minister for Transport that, despite all their efforts, the necessary return London services to the England-Wales international next month could not be provided. That is a bitter disappointment. The rail companies have failed abysmally to provide the standard of service that Wales and Cardiff expect, and I have told them that they had better get their act together. Meanwhile, I have been promised temporary arrangements, including extra rail shuttles to Newport, to link with additional coach services. The 10,000 English fans who usually return by train, however, will be guaranteed a warm Welsh welcome—including in the Rhondda, I am sure—if they decide to stay overnight in Wales in many of the communities that will welcome them.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: The Secretary of State knows that the Strategic Rail Authority is looking to cut, under the new franchise for Wales, rail services in coalfield areas and the rest of Wales by 10 or 20 per cent. He has made much of the fact that we cannot get back out of Cardiff after hours, but what does he say about this huge reduction in services promised for Wales? With regard to the Strategic Rail Authority, will he insist that there cannot be any reduction in the funding for, or provision of, rail services in Wales?
    Peter Hain: As the hon. Gentleman knows, funding for rail services across Britain, including Wales, has been rising from the abysmally low level that we inherited in 1997. Over a two-year period, it has risen from £3.1 billion last year to £4.3 billion next year. Certainly, the issue that he raised will be addressed.
    Llew Smith: The Secretary of State will recognise that one way of overcoming deprivation and regenerating communities such as Blaenau Gwent is to improve the communication system. Although we welcome the planned reintroduction of the railway service between Ebbw Vale and Cardiff, does he accept that the plans are inadequate as long as they exclude Newport, where many of our people work, while many people come from Newport to Blaenau Gwent for jobs and leisure opportunities?
    Peter Hain: I agree. We are therefore working hard with the Assembly and the SRA on the passenger service requirement to provide the extra services. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the next question, the House should come to order.

    Youth Unemployment
    Albert Owen: If he will make a statement on youth unemployment in Wales. [89734]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Peter Hain): The new deal has been a huge success in Wales, especially in helping young people back into work, with 27,400 Welsh youngsters securing jobs.
    Albert Owen: In 2002, unemployment fell faster in my constituency than in most other areas in Wales. During my right hon. Friend's recent visit to my constituency, he met many young people who were optimistic and enthusiastic about the future. Does he agree that, to maintain the enthusiasm, we need a proper skills strategy to identify crafts where there are skills deficiencies, such as plumbing and electrical work? Will he push for such shortages to be identified because such qualifications and skills are as vital as academic qualifications in building a better economy in Wales and further reducing youth unemployment?
    Peter Hain: Yes. When I visited Holyhead high school, which my hon. Friend attended, I was impressed by the pupils and the new atmosphere in Holyhead as a result of the Government's record investment, falling unemployment and increasing job creation.

    New Deal
    Gareth Thomas: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues about the operation of the new deal in Wales. [89735]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend and I meet Cabinet colleagues regularly to discuss a range of issues, including the operation of the new deal. I am also pleased to have the opportunity to discuss its operation in Wales with the new deal taskforce in Abergavenny on Friday.
    Gareth Thomas: Has not the new deal been enormously effective in tackling unemployment not only in Wales but throughout the United Kingdom? Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour Members at Westminster and in the Assembly, for which an election will shortly take place, can rightly be proud of that achievement?
    Mr. Touhig: The new deal has been a huge success in Wales, where 27,000 young people have secured jobs since its launch. Of those, 80 per cent. have retained them for 13 weeks or more. My attendance at new deal taskforce meetings last year encouraged me about its progress.
    In my hon. Friend's constituency, long-term youth unemployment has fallen by 91 per cent. since 1997 and the claimant count for Clwyd, West is down by 44 per cent. We can all be proud of that achievement by the Labour Government.
    Mr. John Bercow: What assessment has the hon. Gentleman made of the statistical evidence
    672
    that shows that those who undertake the training and education option on the new deal for young people are twice as likely not to get a job at the end of it as they are to get one?
    Mr. Touhig: It would be a change if the hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party said something valuable and good about the new deal. They opposed it and voted against it. Under the Conservative Government, unemployment between 1979 and 1997 reached 3 million. The Government are doing something about that. We should be congratulated on our success, not criticised. It is time that he woke up to that.

    Rail Franchises
    Hywel Williams: What recent bilateral discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport on the Wales and Borders rail franchise. [89736]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Peter Hain): I have regular discussions with the Secretary of State for Transport about transport issues that affect Wales.
    Hywel Williams: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that the 20 per cent. cut that the Strategic Rail Authority demands would mean a real cut in services on vital lines such as the Cambrian coast line in my constituency? Earlier, he referred to the increase in investment in rail. If it is so good, why is the service so bad?
    Peter Hain: I acknowledge that the hon. Gentleman properly raises some issues as a local MP, and we are dealing with them. However, we inherited a dreadful legacy from the Conservatives of a collapsing rail industry and under-investment. We are putting in a record amount of investment, which increases year by year, in rail in Wales, including west Wales, as well as elsewhere in Britain.

    Flooding
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister on flooding in Wales. [89739]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Peter Hain): I have regular discussions with the First Minister about issues affecting Wales, including flooding and flood prevention measures.
    Miss McIntosh: I am most grateful for that unexpected reply from the Secretary of State. He will be aware that, in particular, flooding has caused enormous damage to farmland. What discussions has he had with the farming community and what representations has he received? What compensation might he make to the farming community for the damage that has been done to its crops?
    Peter Hain: I am grateful for the unexpected question from the hon. Lady, especially as it is from her. This is an issue that we are addressing, and I recognise the point that she makes.

  The Prime Minister was asked —
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Stephen McCabe: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 15 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning I spoke to Michael Todd, the chief constable of Greater Manchester police, about last night's tragic murder.
    I also had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. McCabe: In view of last night's tragic events in Manchester, will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is a review for police officers undertaking these very difficult operations, to see whether anything can be done to increase their safety? What further steps are planned to protect the public now from the all too visible threat from fanatics, with their obvious contempt for human life?
    The Prime Minister: First, I am sure that the whole House would wish to express our shock and outrage at this wicked murder and our deepest sympathy with, and prayers for, the family of DC Oake. Once again we see the courage and commitment of police officers to the service of our country and the dangers they face daily on our behalf. I met DC Oake when he worked with my security team on visits to the north-west. His family has lost a very fine man; the community has lost a very fine police officer. We mourn his death and it should redouble our determination to tackle terrorism in all its forms.
    As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will make a statement shortly. My hon. Friend will also know that the chief constable is doing all that he can to establish the precise facts of what happened.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I join the Prime Minister in his sentiment and his words. Everyone in the House and across the whole country will feel a sense of shock at the murder of Stephen Oake in Manchester last night. As the Prime Minister said, our thoughts and prayers are with the families of Stephen Oake and the injured police officers. The whole House will recognise that we owe them an enormous debt of gratitude
    Obviously, it is too early to comment on the details of the police operation; we shall wait for a fuller report of events. But does the Prime Minister agree that the terror raid in Manchester is a wake-up call to the nation, reminding us all of the increased threat that we now face?
    The Prime Minister: Without any doubt at all, it reminds us of the threat that international terrorism poses here in Britain and of the need to take all the measures we possibly can to stamp it out in all its forms,
    674
    which is why the House was right after 11 September to pass the emergency legislation that we did. We must make sure that groups of fanatics, who have no compunction about taking human life and who have no demands that any political system could possibly accede to, are defeated. The only way to defeat them is to make sure that we give every support to the security services and the police in the difficult and, as we can see, dangerous work that they do.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister's answer begs a wider question as well. Our ambassador in Paris, we have learned, has told the Government that he shares the French Government's incredulity at this country's response to the threat from extremists. Does the Prime Minister agree that the priority for the Government must be that no person should be allowed to enter the country if he or she poses a risk to our security, and that those who do should be detained or deported immediately?
    The Prime Minister: Of course that is right. The terrorism legislation that the House passed included a specific derogation from the European convention on human rights precisely to allow us to detain without trial those who are suspected terrorists. In addition, the asylum legislation that we passed last year gave us a power to prevent suspected terrorists from entering the country at all. There is now very strong co-operation right across European frontiers to deal with this.
    I would point out that, unfortunately, the scourge of international terrorism is not limited to this country. Just in the past few days there have been arrests in France, Germany, Belgium and Holland, and there were arrests recently in Sweden. This is an international problem. We must take every measure we can here, but also every measure we can with other countries to cooperate abroad.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: I agree with the Prime Minister: we must, but we also know that Home Office officials apparently advised Ministers after the events of 11 September that the key to fighting international terrorism would be to detain all asylum seekers entering the country in secure centres until their age, nationality and identity can be properly established. Will the Prime Minister now ensure that we make our borders secure and stop terrorists abusing the asylum system?
    The Prime Minister: Of course. That is why we introduced the legislation that we did, and we have the ability for the first time not just to detain people, but to detain them without trial if they are suspected terrorists. I remind the House that, when that legislation was passing through the House, many people were opposed to it because they thought it was unacceptable in terms of our civil liberties. That is why it is important, I hope, that we continue to take the measures necessary here and abroad to make sure in so far as we possibly can that there is no hiding place for the terrorists. Of course, the arrests in the past few weeks have taken place precisely because the police and the security services are working closely to arrest and detain those whom they suspect of

    675
    terrorism and, if it were not for the powers that we now have, we would have been unable to take the action that we have taken.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: When the Prime Minister meets the American President at the end of the month, will he tell George Bush that there is almost certainly a majority of the British people against the idea of a war with Iraq? Will he tell him that a lot of the British people are against the war because they can see that it is all about America getting its hands on the oil supplies in the middle east? Will he also tell him that we are not prepared to fight a war based on the fact that this vain American President is concerned more about finishing the job that his father failed to complete 12 years ago?
    The Prime Minister: It will not surprise my hon. Friend to hear that I am afraid I cannot agree with him. Let me first deal with the conspiracy theory that this is somehow to do with oil. There is no way whatever, if oil were the issue, that it would not be infinitely simpler to cut a deal with Saddam, who, I am sure, would be delighted to give us access to as much oil as we wanted if he could carry on building weapons of mass destruction. The very reason why we are taking the action that we are taking is nothing to do with oil or any of the other conspiracy theories put forward. It is to do with one very simple fact: the United Nations has laid down—indeed, it has been laying down for 10 years—that Saddam Hussein has to disarm himself of weapons of mass destruction and that he poses a threat because he used those weapons, and I believe that we have to make sure that the will of the United Nations is upheld. I also believe, incidentally, that a majority of the British people—who, I think, always take a firm view of the need for action in the face of dictators such as Saddam Hussein—knows that the UN, having laid down its mandate, has to see that mandate through.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Prime Minister accept that we share the expressions of sympathy and support for the family and colleagues of Detective Constable Stephen Oake and the other officers injured last night? Is it not a reminder of how much we owe to those who risk their lives to protect our freedom—those in the police, including the special branch, and in the security and intelligence services who do that day by day?
    Turning to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, now that the full complement of inspectors is in place and equipped with more intelligence than before, what will happen if they report on 27 January that they need more time to complete their work? Does the statement made by the Prime Minister's official spokesman that they will be given the time and space that they need reflect President Bush's view or not?
    The Prime Minister: First, in relation to Detective Constable Oake and the other injured officers, obviously I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman says.
    The inspectors are now seized of this issue. It was only last week that they began with a full complement, and they are being allowed to do their job. As I said on Monday, I am not getting into the position of speculating on arbitrary timetables. However, it is
    676
    simply worth reading, if I may, what Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, said yesterday because I agree with these sentiments entirely. He said:
    "If…it were to come out that Iraq continues to defy, and that disarmament has not happened, as I have said, the Council will have to face up to its responsibilities and take the necessary action. But, of course, this is the understanding and the spirit of the resolution, which I hope we will all respect."
    That states the position exactly. We have a UN inspection regime in there. If there is a finding that is a breach of the UN resolution, I expect that action will follow, and, incidentally, I believe that action will follow with the full support of the UN.
    Mr. Beith: Is the Prime Minister satisfied that, if the inspectors, perhaps with the support of Kofi Annan, say that they need more time, the US Administration will be ready to grant them that time? Surely this is about disarming Saddam Hussein, with the widest international support and a UN mandate. The consequences of military action, before the case for it had been made would be very serious indeed. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) asked the Prime Minister last week, are there any circumstances in which his Government would decide not to commit our troops in support of US military action?
    The Prime Minister: As I said last week, I would put it round the other way. I explained the circumstances in which we would be prepared to use force. In respect of the action by the United States, let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that the United States has gone down the United Nations route. I remember that, before the resolution was passed last November, many people were insisting to me that the US would not bother with the United Nations and that it was impatient with the whole process and would not give it a chance to work. That has not been the case, and I do not believe that it is the case. So we have the international community united, but the single most dangerous thing that we could do at the moment—which, in my view, would increase the likelihood of conflict—would be to send out a signal of any weakness in our determination to see the mandate laid down by the UN carried through.
    David Winnick: While I recognise the importance of the work of the weapons inspectors, is it not a fact that the regime constantly denied that it had any biological weapons until the two sons-in-law of the dictator defected in August 1995 and gave information that the regime then admitted was true? Why should we believe that dictator now? However much I dislike George Bush and his politics, I dislike the murderous dictator in Baghdad a million times more.
    The Prime Minister: What my hon. Friend says about the regime of Saddam Hussein is right. It has always been a puzzle to me how liberal-minded people could possibly line up and support the continuation of one of the most repressive, murderous and barbaric regimes in the world. The point that my hon. Friend makes is worth underlining. People talk of the impatience of the United States, Britain or anyone else, but this has been going on for more than a decade. Saddam Hussein has had the opportunity time and again to comply with the

    677
    United Nations resolutions. What we did last November was to lay it down again in a fresh resolution so that he would be in absolutely no doubt. People say that the choice is ours as to whether conflict happens, but actually the choice is his. If he wants to avoid conflict, he can comply with the UN resolution, cooperate with the inspectors, tell us where this material is, and have it destroyed as it should be. Conflict would then be avoided. So we have made the choice that we had to make, and set it out in the UN resolution. The choice is now for Saddam.
    Mr. Mark Oaten: If the Prime Minister still supports an ethical foreign policy, and does not want to see our cricketers playing in Zimbabwe, will he consider paying compensation to the cricket board so that the cricketers are not forced to play there?
    The Prime Minister: No, for the reasons that my right hon. Friend has already set out.
    Mr. Martin Salter: The Prime Minister's new year message was a timely reminder of the clear and present danger facing this country, but for some of my constituents who live in areas of high flood risk, global warming is as worrying as global terrorism. The Local Government Association and the Emergency Planning Society have suggested that the current civil defence grant of some £19 million for England, Wales and Northern Ireland is inadequate and some £50 million short of what is required. Will the Prime Minister now review the resources available to the emergency planning officers and ensure that they have the tools properly to protect public safety in these circumstances?
    The Prime Minister: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's constituents who have faced the problem of flooding over recent weeks. We are reviewing the flood defences not only in the Reading area but in all areas in which flooding has occurred. I would point out to him, however, that we are now spending about £500 million on flood defences. That is some 80 per cent. up on where we were five years ago, so we are putting in the extra money and obviously we must make sure that it is properly used.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: When it comes to dealing with Iraq, the Prime Minister said that a second United Nations resolution is preferable. The International Development Secretary says that it is essential. Which is the Government's position?
    The Prime Minister: Both I and the International Development Secretary have set out the position, which is that of course we want a UN resolution. I have set out continually, not least in the House on 18 December, that in circumstances where there was a breach, we went back to the UN and the spirit of the UN resolution was broken because an unreasonable veto was put down, we would not rule out action. That is the same position that everybody has expressed, and I think it is the right
    678
    position. However, having said that, it is not merely preferable to have a second UN resolution. I believe that we will get one.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Let me tell the Prime Minister what the right hon. Lady said. [Interruption.] They do not want me to. She said that Britain must
    "not divert from the UN route."
    When asked if that meant that Britain should not go along with any unilateral action, she replied:
    "That is the logic of the position."
    Everyone knows that most of the Cabinet back her position, not his, so I ask him: was she right or was she wrong?
    The Prime Minister: We have all made it clear that it is right to go down the UN route; that is precisely the route that we are going down. The right hon. Gentleman is quoting my right hon. Friend selectively, because if he looks at other parts of the interview he will see that she made it clear that she did not want to confine herself to a second UN resolution, but of course we want a second UN resolution.
    The point is that we have gone down the UN route very deliberately. That is because it is best that this were done with the maximum international support. [Interruption.] That is the position that everybody has taken on this issue. With the greatest respect, rather than trying to pretend that there is some difference where there is none, we should all surely unite around the position. I hope the whole House will unite around the sensible position that we have a UN resolution and that if it is breached action must follow, because the UN mandate has to be upheld.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Last week, the Defence Secretary contradicted the Foreign Secretary; this week, the International Development Secretary contradicts the Prime Minister. As we speak, British troops are being deployed, yet the Government are incapable of speaking with one voice. Does not the Prime Minister understand that he and his Cabinet must be clear and united to send a right message to Saddam Hussein, British troops and the British people?
    The Prime Minister: The position that I have set out is very clear. We have chosen to go down the UN route; I think it is important that we do. That is because if Saddam is to be disarmed, it is important that he is disarmed with the support of the international community. We want the inspectors to do their work. If the inspectors come back and we find that there is a breach of the UN resolution, action will follow. We have said that a second UN resolution is preferable, because it is far better that the UN come together. We have also said that there are circumstances in which a UN resolution is not necessary, because it is necessary to be able to say in circumstances where an unreasonable veto is put down that we would still act. That is the position that the Government have set out throughout, and it is the position that remains.
    Caroline Flint: The Prime Minister will he aware that Doncaster awaits a Government decision on the proposed Finningley

    679
    airport in my constituency. Some 150,000 people have signed letters and petitions in favour of Finningley, because they recognise the jobs and consumer choice that it will bring, unlike people in other parts of the country. Will he ensure that the forthcoming airports White Paper gives due consideration to building on the achievement of regional airports to contribute to the economic development of the whole country, not just the south-east?
    The Prime Minister: On my hon. Friend's general point, I totally agree. I have Teesside airport in my area, so I understand the vital importance of regional airports to an area's economic well-being. In respect of Finningley airport, again I understand her strong support for the proposals, and the planning inspector's report is with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I can tell her that the aim is to take a decision in the early part of this year. Obviously, until that decision is taken, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the merits of the case.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: At his press conference on Monday, the Prime Minister implied that he had information that went beyond that contained in the British Government's dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Has he given that information to the House of Commons Intelligence and Security Committee? If not, will he be doing so?
    The Prime Minister: Of course intelligence about the situation in Iraq is coming in all the time, so it would be perfectly natural for there to be additional intelligence subsequent to the publication of the dossier. As for sharing that intelligence with the Intelligence and Security Committee, I am not sure of the exact position, but I can certainly find out and let the hon. Gentleman know. Of course we have very good relations with the Committee; we do share intelligence with it, and we have always found that it treats that intelligence in a very confidential way.
    As I have said, we are gathering intelligence about this all the time, and we are also working closely with the UN inspectors.
    Mr. James Plaskitt: Although it is welcome news that the number of people waiting longer than 12 months for NHS treatment has fallen by 20,000 in the last year, there are still 12,000 in that position, which is not acceptable. Can my right hon. Friend say how and when he will bring an end to the long waits?
    The Prime Minister: We are, of course, getting those long waits down all the time. We have eliminated the 18-month and 15-month waits, and a timetable is set for the 12-month waits to be dealt with shortly. Moreover, the waiting times themselves are coming down. I think that well over 70 per cent. of people are now being seen within three months, and I believe I am right in saying that not a single national measurement of waiting does not show a better position than that of five years ago. That is a result of additional investment in the health
    680
    service—which is why it is so important for us to keep it up, and certainly not to cut the extra investment by 20 per cent. across the board.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Today the Seventh Armoured Brigade waits in limbo for the Government to decide on its deployment to the Gulf. Twenty thousand more service men wait on standby to cover the firemen's strike, while the Prime Minister will not even try to obtain an injunction to stop the strike under existing law that makes a strike in which strikers knowingly endanger life illegal. When will he put the interests of the armed forces before his own narrow party interests?
    The Prime Minister: I pay tribute to the armed forces and the work that they do, not just in any deployment for possible military action but in relation to the firefighters' dispute. They handled themselves magnificently during the strike.
    As I have explained before to the Leader of the Opposition, the decision whether to seek an injunction is taken by the Attorney-General, on the basis of whether such an injunction would succeed or not. It is a decision for him, and not one that I can or should take.
    Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: The Prime Minister referred to the United Nations 15 times during last week's Prime Minister's Questions, thereby demonstrating his support for the will of the international community. Does he agree that any breach of UN Security Council resolution 1441 should be a matter for the weapons inspectors and the Security Council, not President Bush and the American Administration? Does he also agree that if President Bush takes unilateral action against Iraq, he will be defying the United Nations?
    The Prime Minister: It is, of course, a matter for all of us in the international community, including President Bush. Of course the weapons inspectors should be allowed to do their job. I must point out, however—because I think this is important—that the only reason we have UN weapons inspectors back in there is the firm stand that has been taken. Does anyone seriously believe that we would have UN weapons inspectors back in Iraq if there were a possibility of disarmament happening in a peaceful way? Does anyone really believe that they would be there if we had not sent the clearest possible signal?
    It is also important at this time to ensure that we continue to send that signal of strength. If Saddam believes for a single instance that the will of the international community has abated—that the international community does not have the solidity of purpose that it needs to see this thing through—the consequences of either conflict or prolonged conflict are increased. As I have said, if we can avoid conflict we should, but the choice is Saddam's.
    Let me tell my hon. Friend and others that if we do come to conflict and Saddam is removed, the people who rejoice first and foremost will be the Iraqi people themselves.
    Sandra Gidley: Does the Prime Minister agree that eight days allows a paedophile more

    681
    than long enough to abuse a child? If so, will he act to close the loophole that allows registered sex offenders to travel abroad for short visits without notifying the authorities in the country of their destination?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said to me that the new sex offenders Bill will address that issue. It is obviously important that we legislate on it, and that we do so in a way that allows the House to debate such matters in full.
    Jim Knight: In May last year, Mr. Andrew Shirley of Birmingham came within minutes of drowning at Durclle Door in my constituency. He was saved thanks to the eight-minute response time of the Portland search and rescue helicopter, which is based in my constituency. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency is considering relocating that helicopter to Lee on Solent, adding 30 minutes to the response time—time that Mr. Shirley and the many others saved by the helicopter simply do not have? I have done all that I can to raise the issue in the House and with Ministers, but is not it time now for the Department for Transport to improve its response time and decide whether it is willing to commit £2 million as a one-off payment to save our lifesaver?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the magnificent work that the coastguard does for us. I am aware that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has been debating whether to move one of the helicopters, and the matter is being studied by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. Urgent discussions are continuing, and we will let my hon. Friend know the results of those discussions as soon as we can.
    Miss Ann Widdecombe: Given that record numbers of people are applying for asylum, that Ruud Lubers has said that Britain takes more than its fair share, and that there is now a link between suspected terrorism and asylum seeking, does the Prime Minister consider his asylum policy to have been a success or a failure?
    The Prime Minister: We took additional measures on asylum in the legislation last year precisely because we recognise that there is far more to do. I point out to the right hon. Lady that when we introduced legislation that, for example, gave us the ability to deport people who were asylum seekers convicted of criminal offences, its provisions were watered down by Conservative Members who opposed them. We introduced measures that allowed us to derogate from the European convention and to make sure that suspected terrorists were not subject to the normal asylum procedures, but those measures were also opposed by certain Conservatives. So I entirely agree that we need to do far more to reduce the number of asylum applications. That is what the measures that we are taking are currently doing. However, it is no use the right hon. Lady asking us to take tough action unless she and her colleagues are prepared to back us.
    Helen Jones: Does my right hon. Friend share the view of many hon.
    682
    Members that the decision by Nestlé to sue the Ethiopian Government at a time of famine is morally repugnant? Will he promise to give every assistance to the Government of Ethiopia in resisting that claim, and will he take the lead in urging the international community to take urgent action to tackle the famine facing many people in Ethiopia and throughout Africa?
    The Prime Minister: First, we provided about £32 million in assistance to Ethiopia last year. We are looking at what more we can do in response to the famine there. My hon. Friend will know that the work done by the Department for International Development has to a significant extent enabled the proper cooperation between Ethiopia and the UN famine relief programme to take place. I assure her that we will continue to do all we that can in respect of the famine in Ethiopia and of the coming famine in southern Africa.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Prime Minister often says that he likes to do things because they are right. How could it possibly be right to risk the lives of young British service men and women on a venture in Iraq that does not have the backing of international law, or the support of the majority of British people?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman says that there is no backing in international law, but let us wait and see what happens in the coming weeks in relation to the United Nations. I will tell him why I think that it is right that we are prepared to take action if necessary in respect of Saddam's regime. It is right because weapons of mass destruction—the proliferation of chemical, biological, nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technology along with it—are a real threat to the security of the world and this country. [Interruption.] Someone mentions North Korea. I agree; we have to deal with North Korea too, but that is not a reason for failing to deal with Iraq.
    The truth is that this issue of weapons of mass destruction is a real threat to the world. I believe, incidentally, that it is only a matter of time before it is linked with international terrorism. Does anyone believe that, if we do not take a stand as an international community now in respect of weapons of mass destruction, some terrorist group is not in future going to get hold of that material and use it?
    Supposing I came along in August 2001 and said to the hon. Gentleman that there was an al-Qaeda terrorist network; no one would have heard of it. Suppose I said that we would have to invade Afghanistan in order to deal with it; no one would have believed that that was necessary. Yet, my goodness, a few weeks later, thousands of people were killed on the streets of New York.
    This is a difficult time. I understand the concerns that people have, but sometimes the job of a Prime Minister is to say the things that others do not want them to say but that we believe are necessary to say because the threat is real and if we do not deal with it the consequences of our weakness will haunt future generations.

Greater Manchester Police Incident
12.31 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on yesterday's events in Manchester.
I know that the House would want to reiterate the words of the Prime Minister in expressing great sadness, regret and outrage at yesterday's tragic events in Greater Manchester, which resulted in the death of Detective Constable Stephen Oake and the injury of four other police officers. Our deepest condolences go to Detective Oake's family; our thoughts must be with them and the injured and their families at this time.
Yesterday, I used my powers under the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 to certify the detention, pending deportation, of two foreign nationals who are suspected of involvement in terrorism and of posing a threat to national security. The Greater Manchester police were acting with immigration officers in support of the operation to detain one of those individuals. Police in Manchester detained three men in total. The second national certified by me has now been detained in London. In total, 15 people have so far been detained under the provisions of the Act.
Greater Manchester police have activated their major incident procedures and are conducting a murder inquiry. I shall, of course, report further to the House when I am in a position to do so.
On 7 November, I outlined in a written statement the scale and nature of the threat that we face from international terrorists. In the past few months, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and I have made it clear that that threat is a continuing and dangerous one. I know that the whole House supports the efforts of the police and the security services to detect and prevent terrorist incidents. Parliament has provided the authorities with extra powers through the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act, and I regularly discuss with the security services and the police how those powers are being used and whether they are being used effectively.
Yesterday's events highlighted the ongoing threat that we face. In combating that threat, we rely on the bravery and commitment of police officers and security services in defending us against dangerous criminals and those who threaten the very safety of our country. I commend their bravery to the House.
Mr. Oliver Letwin: As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made clear, we all share the Home Secretary's admiration for the efforts of police officers involved in protecting our lives against terrorism. Our condolences go to the bereaved and our thoughts are with those officers who have been wounded.
It is far too early to make comments or ask detailed questions about the operation, which clearly went badly wrong in some respects. I am sure that in due course the Home Secretary will give the House some information on the way in which the operation was conducted, on what can be done better to protect police officers under
684
such circumstances, and on whether it is appropriate, in such circumstances, for them to be armed. However, this episode also draws our attention to wider questions.
For many months, I have been attempting to alert the Home Secretary and the Government as a whole—and the country as a whole—to the fact that although the Government very clearly have the protection of citizens at heart, and although they do have some machinery to achieve that effect, there are worrying signs that there is not yet the level of urgency that is needed to match the level of threat that the Government rightly acknowledge. The recent entry into Sizewell B power station by some protesters was a worrying sign; signs from the civil defence community that the level of preparedness on the ground is not all that it might be are also worrying.
I hope that the Home Secretary will tell us today that he will redouble his efforts to increase co-ordination to match the level of threat; but, beyond that, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition pointed out in Prime Minister's questions a moment ago, this episode raises the question of whether our current chaotic system of asylum arrangements, of which the Home Secretary is very well aware and which he has attempted in one way and another to mend, notwithstanding the fact that his predecessor left them in probably the worst state of any country in the civilised world—
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The right hon. Gentleman should not say things like that.
Mr. Letwin: The right hon. Gentleman says that I should not say things like that, but they happen to be true, and have been known to be true. They have been known by the current Home Secretary to be true, which is why he has been trying to put them right. However, I regret to say that there is ample evidence that, at present, people are getting through the asylum system who do not have the best interests of this country at heart, and who intend to pursue terrorist activities. What will the Home Secretary do over the coming weeks and months urgently to intensify the security vetting of those who seek to enter this country? That is clearly the question that the House needs to ask, and it is clearly the question that the Home Secretary needs to answer.
Mr. Blunkett: I am deeply sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to attack the record and actions of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why"?] He inherited a system that was on the verge of breakdown. I, at another time—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Opposition Front Benchers have asked the Home Secretary several questions, so it is only courteous to listen to what the Home Secretary has to say.
Mr. Blunkett: At another time and in a more appropriate setting I shall be happy to explain why we had to put in place a new computerised fingerprinting operation, why we had to restore a system following the collapse of the computer that had been ordered in 1996 and why my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) had to take the actions that he did; but let us deal now with last night's events.

685
The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) is right to say that, as part of the inquiry, proper facts about what happened will be laid out. It is my understanding, however, that the initial incursion by a very large number of police, supported by immigration services, was made with the support of armed police officers and with the necessary body armour. It was subsequent events that led to the tragic death of Stephen Oake. It is my understanding also, and I think that it will be the understanding of the House, that the work of MI5 and of special branch and the police, leading to the arrests, shows how well our system is working in identifying and taking action against those who threaten our lives and security. It is precisely because we certificated those people whom we believed to be a risk that Greater Manchester police were acting on the advice given to me, through the security services. That affirms that the system is working—tragically, it led to the death of Stephen Oake—and underpins the fact that we are on top of those who threaten our lives and livelihoods.
We do not need to be reminded by the right hon. Gentleman that he has drawn my attention to the urgency of the matter. After all, the Government were held to account by the Opposition parties and by some elements of the press for what they described as acting too urgently and precipitately in autumn 2001. We were opposed for that very reason again and again in the House and we were ridiculed for it. In the past 12 months, certain elements of the Opposition and the press have constantly said that our action was disproportionate and that we did not have a balanced approach to the protection of our nation vis-à-vis the freedom of the individual. It is those who believe in global trade, global movements and the freedom of the individual who are now calling for even more draconian measures.
Let me deal head on with the issue raised by the Leader of the Opposition and, on his behalf, by the shadow Home Secretary, who must have to eat his words as he repeats his leader's decision to up the ante on asylum. Let us be clear about what we have done. We have introduced a warning system, whereby everyone who goes through the immigration process is identified to check whether they are on the security services' warning index.
I assure the House that, first, we will look into further refining that system by using the computerised fingerprinting and surveillance systems that Opposition Members so often oppose, which were in part introduced by the present Foreign Secretary.
Secondly, on 29 October 2001 I announced the introduction of a range of new processes—induction, reporting centres and an asylum registration card, which is now virtually completely in place—to make registration meaningful and enable us to track those moving through the asylum process. We strengthened the entire immigration process, as the Prime Minister reiterated, to ensure that those who commit a crime can be removed, that there is a fast-track system for doing that and that we can quickly reject those who come into our country clandestinely.
686
On the basis of expediency, the very people who have chosen to use asylum in the way they have this afternoon have opposed so much of what we have done. Let me make it clear that whatever the basis on which people enter our country—on a visa for tourism or for short stays, with a visa for a work permit or as asylum seekers—we will deal with them if they pose a threat to our country.
In the interests of community and race relations, however, let no one suggest that we can assume that asylum seekers pose the sole threat and that it is asylum that we need to fear. It is those people who use asylum and freedom of movement throughout the world and who organise against our interests whom we must fear. It is the people who are helping us to arrest, hold and secure those who pose that threat of whom we should be so proud today.
Simon Hughes: First, I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and all my colleagues around the country, especially those in Greater Manchester and Cheshire, in associating ourselves with expressions by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary of love, sympathy and gratitude to Stephen Oake's family, and of support and solidarity to chief constable Mike Todd and all those who work with him in Greater Manchester police. Many of us have personal experience of their calibre and quality and want to put on record the debt we all owe them.
I endorse entirely the tone of the Home Secretary's response to the previous intervention. The raids in Wood Green, in Edinburgh, in Bournemouth and in Crumpsall yesterday show that the intelligence services and the police are very much in command of the situation. They are a tribute to the work done behind the scenes and in difficult circumstances, and the public need to know that the Home Secretary has every confidence that we are managing the terrorist threat and the threats from individuals to our liberties in a very professional, effective and advanced way. I share the right hon. Gentleman's views in that respect.
Will the Home Secretary deal with three matters that I hope are appropriate to raise now? Will he confirm that the police's view remains that the presumption should be that they are not routinely armed, but that any police force that feels that, to do their job, its officers need to be armed or to have special protective clothing or other protective equipment can use such equipment when the judgment on the ground is that it is appropriate? Will he also confirm that there are no restrictions on that?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the reality today, even if it was not 50 years ago, is that the special branch of the Met, the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service show that we have a level of national policing because there is national activity that has to cross the boundaries of police forces? Does not the reality of policing today mean that we must recognise, formally and openly, that, built on the foundations of local policing, we now need regional, national and international policing; and that unless that level of policing is fully supported, we will not be able to counter those who work internationally and are no respecters of police authority or police force boundaries?

687
Finally, while I share the Home Secretary's view that terrorism in this country is no more the province of asylum seekers than of other foreign nationals who come here or British-born persons who are persuaded of that awful route, is it not worth re-examining the recommendation of the Select Committee on Home Affairs that we could do well by toughening our border controls and replacing the three different agencies that share responsibility at our airports and seaports with one common border force? If the Home Secretary reconsidered that course of action, he would have considerable support. It would allow our liberties, including liberty of movement, to remain, but be the most effective way of ensuring that those who seek to undermine liberty are caught, dealt with and prosecuted according to law.
Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks.
It is not our intention that the police should be routinely armed, but our clear objective, and that of chief constables across the country, is that they should be able to make a local decision in the light of circumstances. I understand that the chief constable of Greater Manchester, Mike Todd, had made that decision in respect of the original incursion into the buildings last night.
Secondly, I share the view that we need the best possible co-ordination between existing crime and intelligence agencies. We are considering how to make sure that, as we do at European level and internationally, we do that more effectively nationally and regionally. SO13, led by David Veness from the Met, performs that role in anti-terrorist and special branch functions very well indeed.
On the third question, if memory serves, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) raised that issue with me at the time of the proscription of the four organisations that we dealt with in the autumn. I said at the time that I did not rule out a change in the organisation of border and port controls. It is worth examining that, as we have in respect of security at airports, within the context of having a clearly focused, prioritised and objective way of using the services available to us to target those whom we know form a genuine risk.
Those people, whether in the press or in this House, who believe that we could surveil, secure details of and verify 100 per cent. the security ratings of the 90 million people who pass through our ports and airports each year are living in a totally different world. From talking to the Attorney General of the United States, it appears that the US takes the same view. Through intelligence work and security, we must take a prioritised and focused approach; it is the only way in which we can proceed, and it is all that we can do. Despite our best efforts and the efforts of those who work for us, in the end, in a global economy with global movements, we cannot create a fortress Britain.
Mr. Graham Stringer: I pay tribute to Stephen Oake and the other officers who were injured in my constituency last night. I wish particularly to pass on my condolences to the family. I have just realised, having read the front page of The Daily
688
Telegraph, that I know Stephen's father quite well from the world of international sport. He chaired the Isle of Man commonwealth games committee and we worked together on the Manchester games and in the run-up to them. I therefore feel particularly emotional and upset. My thoughts are with Robin and the family.
I pay tribute to the refreshingly open way in which the new chief constable of Greater Manchester has provided a great deal more information than we have come to expect. I suspect that he has provided as much information as he can to reassure the local community and the country as a whole.
I live within a couple of hundred yards of where last night's incident took place. I know that the relationships in what is a very mixed cultural and ethnic community are extremely good. I ask my right hon. Friend to agree with me that there is a national problem of international terrorism, and that it is not a Manchester or north London problem.
Mr. Blunkett: Once again, we reiterate our condolences and understand my hon. Friend's words. I can confirm entirely what he said. The actions taken arising from the decision to certify one individual were taken on the basis that we want action wherever and whenever it is necessary.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Detective Constable Stephen Robin Oake was one of my constituents. He lived with his wife of 20 years, Lesley, and his son and two daughters in the village of Poynton in my constituency. He was a thoroughly committed, dedicated and brave career professional policeman. His father, as we heard from the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer), was an assistant chief constable in Greater Manchester, following which he was chief constable of the Isle of Man constabulary.
I make a plea that the media and others respect the grief and the privacy of the Oake family. I ask for a total commitment from the Home Secretary and express the hope—I am grateful, on behalf of the family, for the sympathy that has been expressed by the Home Secretary, by the Prime Minister, by the Leader of the Opposition and by the spokesman for the Liberal party—that the Government, the House and all political parties will do all within their power to ensure that Stephen's life was not lost in vain and to ensure that terrorism does not succeed.
Mr. Blunkett: We all join the hon. Gentleman in requesting that the privacy and integrity of the family be respected and agree that we have an obligation, whatever debates take place across the Dispatch Boxes, to ensure that Stephen Oake did not die in vain. We must learn lessons from what is happening and what happened last night, and apply them in protecting ourselves.
Mr. Kaufman: Following the dignified and moving intervention of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer), may I say that the people of Manchester and the family of the murdered police officer, who are mourning that death and lamenting the injuries to the

689
other police officers, will not take kindly to politicians seeking to score cheap political points over a deeply sad, tragic and alarming event? Hon. Members who seek to do so will win scorn rather than support.
I agree with what the hon. Member for Macclesfield and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley said, but this terrible event demonstrates that terrorism knows no frontiers inside the country or outside it, and that the measures that we are taking against terrorism are justified.
Mr. Blunkett: I share entirely the points made by my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Graham Brady: I, too, extend my condolences to the family of DC Oake. It may be too soon for the Home Secretary to comment, but I ask him to assure the House, if he is able to do so, that last night's tragic events were not in any way caused by a co-ordination failure between the security services, the local special branch and Greater Manchester police. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that any lessons can be learned in improving that co-ordinaton, which might save other tragedies in future?
Mr. Blunkett: On the latter point, I think that there will be lessons to be learned; the review arising from the major incident report will highlight the lessons. I can give an assurance that co-ordination between the security services, SO13—the anti-terrorism branch—and the local police was very good, and that the initial incursion was a success. As I said earlier, arms and body armour were available and were used. It was a subsequent part of the process of dealing with the three people in the dwelling and with what was discovered that led, tragically, to Stephen Oake's death.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: I join my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the whole House in offering my commiserations to the family of Stephen Oake. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is at times such as this that we are forced to focus on the great bravery that we ask of servicing officers in Greater Manchester police and in police forces generally? It is a dangerous job. Fortunately, this sort of tragedy does not happen too often, but it is something that is in the very nature of the role that the police perform.
My right hon. Friend had to act against those suspected of involvement in terrorism. Will he make it clear from the Dispatch Box that asylum seekers in Manchester or elsewhere in Britain are not collectively accused of involvement in terrorism? We must recognise that the vast majority of those who seek refuge in this country want to contribute to the British way of life and do not, sadly, as in this case, want to take from it.
Mr. Blunkett: I reiterate my hon. Friend's point. We must make it clear that we deal with individuals who threaten our lives, not with groups of individuals whom we can dub in a particular way at a particular time for a particular purpose.
We have all commented on police bravery. High-profile events such as yesterday's capture the headlines, but it is worth remembering those who lost their lives in
690
less high-profile events because of the bravery that they showed. I think that our families would want us to do that as well.
Mr. George Osborne: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), I represent members of Greater Manchester police who live in east Cheshire. I know that Stephen's death will be felt deeply in the police community and throughout the Manchester area and the Cheshire area.
May I ask the Home Secretary about the nature and scale of the terrorist threat? I have heard informed Government sources say that there are about 1,000 people in this country who are potential international terrorist operatives. Is that figure really correct—are we talking about a threat of that magnitude?
Mr. Blunkett: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman seriously expects me to speculate on the number of people who may or may not pose a terrorist threat. What I can say clearly to the House is that anyone who is suspected of posing a terrorist threat, or who is suspected of dealing with or succouring terrorists, will of course be under surveillance and will be dealt with appropriately. There are no meaningful and verifiable figures of the sort used in the media, and I do hope that the considered and sensible way in which we have normally dealt with these matters in the House not only prevails here, but is reflected in the media. One of the great strengths of our country is that we are not just stoical; we deal with things with a clear and hard head, and we know what does and does not make sense.
Angela Eagle: May I also associate myself with condolences offered to the family of Stephen Oake, and to those officers who were injured? I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), in that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman's response to today's statement constituted a misjudgment. Will my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary comment on the progress that is being made in international co-operation among law enforcement agencies, particularly within the European Union, to try to anticipate such threats, and to prevent the threats to our country and our way of life that the arrests of Algerian terrorist gangs in the past week have demonstrated?
Mr. Blunkett: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work in helping to secure precisely that co-operation across Europe, both in terms of immigration and of the policing and security services, and I thank her for it. We have been building on that through genuine cooperation between the services, and by enabling people to share data. Eurodac—the fingerprinting database that was announced only a day or two ago by the relevant Minister—assists us by enabling the sharing of that information and the tracking of those who pose a threat to us all.
Dr. John Pugh: May I add my condolences to those eloquently expressed by other Members; and can the Home Secretary say how long the suspected terrorists involved in this case have been in this country, and in the north-west in particular?
Mr. Blunkett: I can deal with the individual who was certified yesterday, and who was arrested in

691
Manchester. He has been in this country, off and on, for about four years. He sought asylum and was refused, took his case to appeal, absconded and disappeared, and was then tracked. This is the real issue for the House: he was not let go and forgotten about; he was tracked by the security services, to the point where we were about to arrest and deal with him under legislation passed in autumn 2001.
Mr. Andrew Dismore: In passing on my condolences to the Oake family, may I ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to look again at taking action against those who incite such violence? I am referring to Abu Hamza, for example, who, incidentally, was given permission to remain in the United Kingdom by the previous Government. May I remind my right hon. Friend that when Abu Hamza spoke in Burnley four years ago—Burnley is not that far from Manchester—he used language to incite precisely such violent knife attacks on what he called "non-believers"? What happened last night was exactly the sort of incident that Abu Hamza has been inciting for many years. Is it not time to take such threats and statements seriously, and to take action against Abu Hamza and others of his ilk?
Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend has been assiduous in rightly pursuing these incidents and issues—as have I—to ensure that the Metropolitan police and, where necessary, the security services evaluate the words and the actions of individuals such as the one mentioned this afternoon. We all know how difficult this matter is, given that there are those who are very careful not to overstep the mark. Baroness Thatcher had exactly the same problems with this individual—this is not a party political point—way back in 1990–91. Real attempts were made to deal with him, but his care in not crossing the line caused the then Government and the police to back off. However, make no mistake about it: every word and every action is being monitored, and we need to do so in a way that secures the confidence of people who are sick and tired of individuals like him abusing our hospitality.
Mr. Edward Garnier: May I briefly touch on one point that has been raised on several occasions? The fact that my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary asks questions that occasionally discomfit the Government does not mean that they are illegitimate, and it is a pity that the manner in which his questions have been considered has created that reaction.
Yesterday's events in Manchester, about which people have spoken movingly, demonstrate—if ever it needed to be demonstrated—that the distinction between our domestic security and our foreign security is not a real one. I therefore suggest to the Home Secretary that he and his right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary discuss a means whereby we can have a debate in this House during which the security of this country at home and abroad is considered in a calm, rational and mature atmosphere, so that the Government can explain their overall policy
692
on international terrorism overseas, and its effects on our national security in this country. That would help us to avoid being reactive, and therefore ill tempered.
Mr. Blunkett: On the first point, I do not want to get sidetracked into considering the actions or words of the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). I have reflected, however, on whether my first reaction if I were in opposition would have been to appear on "Newsnight" and to make the remarks about asylum that he made. I can only presume that the dramatic change of character and approach of the past few weeks has been engendered from elsewhere. I have a great deal of time for the right hon. Gentleman, and it is very sad indeed to see this transformation taking place.
On the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) about having a debate, we had a measured, sane and rational debate on 11 July, but as I have said before, I think that it was reported in only one column of one newspaper. I commend that newspaper—I think that it was The Independent—because it usually has a real go at me; in fact, I have never known it not to do so.
Secondly, we will shortly be debating the renewal of some of the powers in part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. I hope that that will also provide an opportunity to reflect on these matters, and that we are able, as we so often are, to transcend party politics in not only addressing the issues, but making sensible suggestions that a wise Government are clever enough to take on board.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I am one whose voice and vote have always supported the current Home Secretary in his attempts to deal with difficult questions, and for everyone in this House difficult questions do indeed surround this issue. As he knows, my constituency office deals with a high number of asylum seekers, the vast majority of whom are here genuinely. However, last week an Afghan refugee came into my office and said that he was claiming asylum as a former fighter with the Taliban. One needs to question whether this is a sensible system. If we have a war in Iraq, at the end of it supporters of Saddam Hussein would presumably be entitled to claim asylum in the west. This is a ridiculous position.
Mr. Blunkett: I do not consider that it is not possible for people to return to Afghanistan. After the fall of Saddam Hussein, I would not consider that it was impossible for people to return to a free and democratic Iraq. However, I take my hon. Friend's point entirely. Sanity has to prevail in the way in which we legislate and process matters, and in the way in which the judicial system deals with appeals. If the individual in question was trying to hide his intent or past history, he was not doing a particularly good job of it by coming into my hon. Friend's surgery and announcing his past endeavours.
Lady Hermon: Speaking as the wife of a former Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which of course lost 302 officers at the hands of those involved in terrorist activity, may I say how desperately sorry I was that we learned last night of

693
the murder of a young police officer doing his duty in Manchester? Mercifully, we have been spared such acts in Northern Ireland in recent years. I am terribly sorry for Stephen Oake's family that they have been put through such pain and suffering, as well as his colleagues and the community of Manchester. Such an event is a terrible tragedy in any community.
May I urge the Home Secretary to consult the present Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Hugh Orde, to see what lessons can be learned further to protect police officers, to ensure that there is no repetition of last night's appalling incident in Manchester?
Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I am very happy to do that. We all accept that the hon. Lady was closer to such events through her husband than any of us have been. We respect and understand her very strong feelings.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: May I add my condolences to the family of Stephen Oake? [also pay tribute to the security and intelligence services, which have obviously twice now got the right information and managed to track down activity that is dangerous to all of us.
Nevertheless, will the Home Secretary answer the questions asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) from the Front Bench? Will he specifically tell me what his reasons are for not adopting a policy of securely housing all new applicants for asylum until either, under my proposed policy, their cases are determined, or, according to the advice that he received from his officials, at least until their identity has been determined?
Mr. Blunkett: First, I did not receive such advice. I am aware of the disclosure to the right hon. Lady under the appropriate Act and of the e-mail sent by a junior official shortly after I had made a statement to Parliament laying out how the induction reporting and ARC—application registration card—system would register and track those who came to the immigration service in a way that was not possible before June 2001. Secondly, I said that the logistical cost of providing wholly secure accommodation for every single asylum seeker and their dependents while they are assessed and their security rating is evaluated is enormous. As we have seen in respect of planning consents, we could still be in the process of trying to secure those centres without the reporting, the ARC card and induction in a way that would not have ensured our security—but might have made her feel better.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Having finished the admirable 20-day parliamentary police service scheme in Brixton only last Friday, may I express my especial sympathy to the family of DC Oake and to the officers who were injured in Manchester? It is our duty to the police service and the country as a whole to ensure that our systems of immigration control really work and that those who are in breach of the immigration regulations are returned promptly. In respect of applications for asylum, we must ensure that the provisions of the Dublin convention are upheld.
694
Thus, applicants who come from EU countries should not, prima facie, have to be dealt with in this country, but should be returned to the EU country in which they first arrived.
Mr. Blunkett: I agree entirely. I know that the whole House will support the Government in future when we deal with those cases, as we had to with the Ahmadi family.
Patrick Mercer: As someone who has been present at the scene of the murder of several police officers, I should like to join the rest of the House in expressing my sympathy for Constable Oake and my admiration for the security services in the success that they have achieved. However, when such an incident occurs, it is not currently clear whether the Security Service, the chief constable of the region concerned, or the national co-ordinator of the Metropolitan police's anti-terrorist branch is in charge. If some good is to come from the death of this brave constable, can we ensure that that situation is resolved?
Mr. Blunkett: The Security Service does its job in detecting, conducting surveillance and advising. The anti-terrorism branch works, as it always has, with the local police, as they are the enforcement and arresting authorities. The police are therefore co-ordinated through the anti-terrorism branch in incidents such as yesterday's. It obviously behoves those immediately in charge to ensure that at each stage of the process—there are different stages, as I am sure will become clear as the evidence emerges—the appropriate force is in charge of the aspect in question. I do not want to go further in that regard, as it is important that the major incident programme be undertaken. It is also important that the evaluation of the evidence from those involved be brought forward at a time when, after the terrible trauma caused to those who were present at the incident and had to deal with the attack on the officers who were injured, as well as the death of Stephen Oake, we can evaluate it more carefully.
Dr. Julian Lewis: The Home Secretary is undoubtedly correct to say that what has ended as a police tragedy began as a Security Service success, but does he recall a not dissimilar incident in a prison camp in Afghanistan, when an American interrogator was murdered by someone whom he was interrogating in circumstances in which one would normally have thought that violence was unlikely? Is not one of the lessons that should be drawn from what happened that the mentality of fundamentalist Islamic terrorists is such that they will lash out whenever they can, even if it is to their own obvious disadvantage? Should he not, without prejudging the circumstances of this case, perhaps consider when all those circumstances are known whether guidelines should be issued saying that people who are arrested on suspicion of such terrorist activities should be held in handcuffs until they are removed to a secure environment?
Mr. Blunkett: I am sure that the lessons of yesterday's incident will be learned and that there will be an evaluation of the process that took place in terms of the

695
unhandcuffing of the individual who committed the act and obtained a knife. At this stage, I think that it would better if we said no more about the incident.

Missile Defence
1.18 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on missile defence.
The House will recall that in the defence debate on 17 October I described the work in the United States on the development of ballistic missile defence systems and the Government's thinking on the issue. Subsequently, on 9 December, as I informed the House during defence questions that day, I placed in the Library a discussion paper produced by the Ministry of Defence setting out the role that active missile defence might play within a comprehensive strategy for tackling the threat from ballistic missiles. On 17 December, I informed the House of the receipt of a request from the United States Government to upgrade the early warning radar at Fylingdales for missile defence purposes.
I have repeatedly emphasised that the Government would not respond to such a request without a further opportunity for discussion in the House. Next week's defence debate is a timely further occasion for the House to discuss the challenges that the United Kingdom faces in the new international security environment, including those posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile technology. I hope that the House will find it helpful if today I set out the Government's thinking on the US request.
The Government recognise that missile defence raises important strategic issues, as well as local concerns in North Yorkshire. Following the release of the discussion paper in December, with its invitation to all interested parties to contribute their views, we have had around 300 responses. In addition, I visited North Yorkshire last week, and heard the views of local people and their elected representatives, as well as meeting representatives from the planning authorities. We have taken those views into account as we have considered the central question, which is the key test that the Government will apply to the US request: would agreeing to the upgrade of Fylingdales ultimately enhance the security of the UK and the NATO Alliance?
The background to the US request is the marked increase in the threat to our security from weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. The Prime Minister has described weapons of mass destruction as the key issue facing the world community. It is a real threat to our security, fanned by proliferation from irresponsible regimes. As we all know, threat is a combination of intention and capability. Intentions can be debated, but they can also change at very short notice. The evidence of expanding capabilities, therefore, cannot responsibly be ignored. The hard fact is that a number of states of concern are making major investments in developing ever-longer range ballistic missiles. We are not referring here to countries developing standard military technology against the risk of conventional conflict. These ballistic missile programmes are being developed solely in order to threaten the delivery of mass destruction—nerve gas, toxins, biological agents or even nuclear warheads. It is the combination of ballistic missiles and the possession of these weapons of mass destruction, together with the demonstrated willingness to use those capabilities, that

697
makes Iraq the most immediate state threat to global security. Elsewhere, if North Korea ends its moratorium on flight testing, it could flight test a missile with the potential to reach Europe and the United States within weeks. Other countries may acquire similar missile systems, not least through the proliferation of missile technology from North Korea.
Based on the analysis and discussion that we have undertaken so far, I have therefore come to the preliminary conclusion that the answer to the US request must be yes, and that we should agree to the upgrade as proposed.
RAF Fylingdales has operated since 1963 as a ballistic missile early warning system, which together with other radars in the United States and Greenland provides tactical warning and attack assessment of a missile attack against the United Kingdom, North America or western Europe. It has been upgraded a number of times over the years. Many hon. Members will recall the old "golf balls" that were dismantled in the late 1980s and replaced with the existing pyramid-like structure. Indeed, a life extension programme is under way to maintain its capabilities to provide early warning and track objects in space. These missions will continue to be the primary function of RAF Fylingdales.
I have sought to dispel a number of misapprehensions about the US request in various meetings in North Yorkshire. The proposal is for an upgrade of the existing radar, not some massive new construction. No change to the external appearance of the radar should be involved. The upgrade essentially comprises modification to the hardware and software of the computers within the base. There will be no change in the power output of the radar, which is many times below statutory safety limits. We therefore believe that no health risk to people or livestock could arise. We have already explained to the local planning authorities that we see nothing in the upgrade proposals that would require formal planning consultation, and we have promised to provide them with full supporting evidence in due course.
The upgrade of the Fylingdales radar can and should be considered as a discrete proposition. It does not commit us in any way to any deeper involvement in missile defence, although it gives us options to do so, should we decide on that at a later date. It will not involve huge costs. The upgrade will be performed at US expense, and we do not expect any significant variation in the running costs of RAF Fylingdales, which, as is appropriate for an RAF station, we already bear.
Agreeing to the upgrade is not at odds with the wider approach of our NATO allies. The Prague summit agreed
"to examine options for addressing the increasing missile threat to Alliance territory, forces and population centres".
The Danish Government have received a parallel request to upgrade the early warning radar in Greenland.
Missile defence is a defensive system that threatens no one. We see no reason to believe fears that the development of missile defences will be strategically destabilising. Reactions from Russia and China have been measured. Missile defence would need to be used
698
only if a ballistic missile has actually been fired. At that point, no matter how much we emphasise our other means of addressing the threat—non-proliferation, intelligence, law enforcement, conflict prevention, diplomacy and deterrence—those means will have failed and cannot be of further help. There would be no way of preventing a devastating impact without intercepting and destroying the missile. Once the missile is in the air, it is unthinkable that anyone could not want us to be in a position to shoot it down.
Those are the reasons for concluding that agreeing to the US request would not prejudice the UK's interests. But beyond that, the key consideration is that it would represent an invaluable extra insurance against the development of a still uncertain, but potentially catastrophic, threat to the citizens of this country. There is not yet an immediate threat to us of this kind, but there is a distinct possibility that this threat could materialise in the relatively near future. It would therefore be irresponsible for the Government to leave the United Kingdom without a route map to acquire a defence against this threat. An upgraded Fylingdales radar would be a vital building-block on which missile defence for this country and for our European neighbours could later be developed, if the need arises and if we so decide.
We are confident that agreeing to this request will not significantly increase the threat to the UK. The security interests of the UK are already closely identified with those of the US and other NATO allies. That will not change, regardless of decisions on missile defence. Keeping a low profile and hoping for the best is simply not an option. We also believe that any increased threat to RAF Fylingdales itself is negligible. For the foreseeable future, states of concern are very unlikely to have the sophisticated capability or size of arsenal to consider targeting specific points or military installations. Long-range missiles in their hands will essentially be weapons of terror, and, as with all military installations in the UK, the station is well defended against terrorist attack. But we must not forget that what drives the threat against the UK is not the deployment of missile defences, but those states of concern who develop or acquire weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.
The upgrade would indicate no commitment to further involvement with missile defence deployments. Separately, we intend to agree a new technical memorandum of understanding with the United States that would give us full insight into the development of their missile defence programme and the opportunity for UK industry to reap the benefits of participation. But any UK acquisition of missile defence would be subject to a separate decision, at the relevant time. We must approach this in stages, considering each step in the light of how both the threat and the relevant technologies evolve.
The Government have not yet formally replied to the US Administration on their request to upgrade the Fylingdales radar. I await with interest the views that hon. Members will wish to put forward, today and in next week's debate. But it is only right that the House should know the Government's preliminary conclusion that it is in the UK's interests to agree to the request. From the UK's national perspective, this specific decision is one that has real potential benefits at

699
essentially no financial cost. It will ensure that if, in the coming years, we find that a potentially devastating threat is becoming a reality, we have the opportunity to defend against it.
Weapons of mass destruction present the gravest risk to UK security. A ballistic missile launched at the UK is the most catastrophic potential threat to our people in the future. A Government's first duty is to protect their citizens, and that is a duty that this Government will not shirk from undertaking.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I thank the Secretary of State for giving me an advance copy of his statement. However, I start by lamenting the fact that Parliament seems to have been the last to know of this significant and controversial decision. By 5.30 pm yesterday, the Press Association wires were reporting that there would be a statement today and
"Mr. Hoon is expected to say…he is minded to accept the American request to use Fylingdales."
The way in which the announcement has been dribbled out is all too typical of the way in which the Government treat Parliament.
I welcome next week's opportunity for debate, but rather than a general debate, which will inevitably be taken up by other defence issues such as the preparation for military action against Iraq or the outcome of the NATO Prague summit, should it not be a specific debate on missile defence? Is that not what the House of Commons is truly for?
Her Majesty's Opposition have consistently made the case for missile defence. We therefore welcome the decision as far as it goes, as we believe that it is in the interests of British national security. Many of our European allies—France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, Greece—are already involved in missile defence programmes, particularly theatre missile defence, some of them in co-operation with the United States. Given that some 276 Labour Members have signed an early-day motion against the Secretary of State's policy, does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that he must now convince those who would prefer to believe that the Government are simply a slave to the United States agenda? After all, it was only on 10 May 1999 that his predecessor Lord Robertson said:
"We are not in favour of developing ballistic missile defence systems. We are in favour of the anti-ballistic missile treaty".— [Official Report,10 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 10.]
Incidentally, that is a treaty whose demise the Government have now accepted without a hint of protest. It was only on 21 March 2000 that the then Foreign Office Minister, now Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Neath (Peter Hain) said on the BBC's "Newsnight":
"I don't like the idea of a star wars programme, limited or unlimited."
Of course, we are not talking about "star wars".
The Secretary of State has spent most of the past year stonewalling on this issue, and I now welcome the refreshing tone that he has adopted towards British participation in missile defence. Does it reflect the fact that the Government are now confident that the technology will be successfully developed to make missile defence a practical reality? What Government control will there be over the use of the facilities at
700
Fylingdales and the information gathered there? Is it possible that Menwith Hill will also be included in the programme at some future date?
On the wider issue, the Secretary of State says that the decision does not commit us to deeper involvement in missile defence, but why is it necessary to approach the issue, as he says, in stages? Surely the conclusion from his statement must be that we should be fully committed in principle to global missile defence now. What is the Government's policy on the possibility of having ground-based interceptor missiles on British soil, or sea-based interceptors on British ships?
The Secretary of State has made a clear case for missile defence. He refers to the possibility of North Korea representing potentially an imminent missile threat "within weeks"? What is the benefit of putting off those decisions? Full support for UK partnership with the United States on missile defence will not only enhance the opportunities for the British defence industry but is clearly vital for our national security. We therefore urge the Government to be candid with the House and to state now that a full commitment to missile defence is their real intention.
Mr. Hann: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman chooses to criticise the fact that, in a short space of time, the Government are making available a full day for debating defence issues. That will be an opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members to debate this and other issues. If the hon. Gentleman feels so strongly about the issue, it is open to the Opposition to use the time that they have available to debate the question as soon as next Monday, which is the next Opposition day. He and other Opposition Front Benchers can use that time to debate the issue in the way that he suggests is so important. I anticipate that he does not really regard the matter as so important; otherwise, he would use the time as he has advocated—[Interruption.] I look forward to any debate. As I said, the Government have made time available next week, and if the Opposition want an extra debate, I will be delighted to be here to respond to any motion that they care to put down.
On the hon. Gentleman's more detailed points about the process, it is important that he examine carefully the way in which the United States is approaching developing a missile defence system. The United States has taken outline decisions only, and has specifically indicated that it is important that there should be a test bed—for the moment, a Pacific test bed designed to provide emergency protection to the United States against the threat from North Korea. As a result, the United States has not taken specific decisions about the kind of system that it would ultimately like to deploy. Again, I have made the point to the hon. Gentleman and Opposition Front Benchers over many months that it does not make sense to anticipate decisions that have not yet been made in the United States. That remains the position. We are in close consultation with the United States about the development of these systems, but it simply does not make sense to anticipate decisions that it has not yet taken.
Mr. Paul Keetch: I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his statement, but I must agree entirely with the view of the Conservative

701
spokesman, the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), that we already knew what he would say today.
The decision, whether one agrees with it or opposes it, has seemingly been made with an astonishing lack of consultation. It is a major strategic decision, and to suggest that it should be debated in an Opposition-day debate is outrageous. The Government issued the public discussion paper only last month, and the request was issued only last month, yet the House of Commons has still not had a proper opportunity to discuss the matter. The costs, the strategic dimensions and the feasibility of the scheme are not well understood by those on either side of the argument. Many questions remain unclear—not least the question of why the Secretary of State chose to announce the decision today.
If Fylingdales is to be upgraded, will Britain be protected by the current US missile defence scheme? If not, why are we participating? How will participation enhance the security of Britain? What is the position of our allies in NATO and our partners in the EU on this programme? Will they be participating? Have the Danes agreed that their site should be used? How much does the UK need to invest to be able to keep the option of participating in the future? What could be achieved by spending that money on other defence issues? Is there a risk of further terrorist attack at Fylingdales? Will extra security be required there? In short, is this a good deal for Britain? [HON. MEMBERS: "You tell us."] If Conservative Front Benchers will hold their lines, I will.
If the Secretary of State says that his preliminary conclusion is to say yes—that he is minded to agree—what might make him change his mind and say later that he does not agree? At the moment, while the Secretary of State may be minded to say yes, many on the Liberal Democrat Benches would be minded to say no. The reality is that, today, the House of Commons is being presented with a fait accompli.
Mr. Hoon: To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he is not noted for the kind of bluster that we have just heard from him—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] No, I think it is important to be charitable to the Liberal Democrats from time to time. But it was not clear from the hon. Gentleman's contribution, if I can call it that, whether he was for or against the proposal. I assure him that there is a very large fence around RAF Fylingdales on which he can sit for as long as he likes, and which will protect him and the occupants of the base against any kind of terrorist threat or rhetoric.
This is a good deal for the United Kingdom. If the hon. Gentleman listened to the explanations that I gave, he will have heard me set out clearly the arrangements as regards support to the United Kingdom and other allies, which would be the key test for our decision.
As regards the protection of the United Kingdom, I made it clear that the test bed that the United States is developing in the Pacific is specifically designed to deal with the threat from North Korea. Clearly, as the system evolves and the United States learns lessons from the operation of the test bed, there will be an opportunity for coverage that includes the United Kingdom, as the
702
request from the United States suggests. That is why I said that we were preserving an option to protect United Kingdom citizens.
Lawrie Quinn: I thank my right hon. Friend for coming to my constituency after his visit to the RAF station at Fylingdales on 6 January. He listened to local people, who are perhaps most concerned about the subject. As promised, I kept a record of the exchanges and presented it to the Defence Committee for consideration. On behalf of my constituents, and especially the people of Whitby and the Esk Valley, I welcome the opportunity to put some of the issues on the record in next week's debate.
My right hon. Friend knows of my engineer's scepticism about whether the system will work in the long run. He heard the views of the people who spoke to him at the Inn on the Moor in Goathland, which is two and a half miles away from the RAF station. They clearly expressed concerns, not so much about a ballistic attack on the base and the area but about a terrorist attack. As well as giving help and information to North Yorkshire police, will my right hon. Friend review the status of installations such as the mothballed station at RAF Staxton, for the protection of the area?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for organising several excellent meetings in North Yorkshire that produced useful and lively discussions that greatly assisted to clarify my thinking and the Government's decision.
As I hope I have made clear, the system that the United States is developing is evolving. Part of the reason for its request is to ensure the development of a comprehensive system. That will not be in place for several years. However, I have no reason to doubt the determination of the United States to make the system fully comprehensive and effective.
I have received no request from the United States about any other installations in this country.
Mr. John Greenway: As the Secretary of State knows, Fylingdales is in my constituency. He also knows that, by and large, I have supported his position. I support his statement, as will most right-thinking people in North Yorkshire, let alone Ryedale.
I urge the right hon. Gentleman to do three things. First, he should take every opportunity to confirm that his comments today mean that we have signed up not to missile defence but to an upgrade of existing radar, which has happened previously. The previous upgrade put millions of pounds into the local economy, and I do not doubt that that will happen again.
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that many local people will fear that what he has announced today is only phase 1 and that phase 2, involving missile defence, will follow? Will he therefore continue to consult local authorities such as North Yorkshire county council, the North York Moors national park authority and Ryedale council, as well as local people? I urge him to take them with him.
Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, although he has denied the more lurid descriptions of what may have been involved in the decision, the local tourist industry is worried? Apart from Fylingdales,

703
there is little else on the North York moors except sheep rearing and tourism. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore urge his colleagues in the Government to help the local economy, tourism and our transport infrastructure? We are prepared to continue to accommodate the radar in our area, but we should like some Government recognition that we have other needs.
Mr. Hoon: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his consistent approach. He has not ducked the difficult issues that are necessarily involved. I stress that we are discussing a specific request about the internal functioning of the radar and communications systems at RAF Fylingdales. As I learned when I visited the hon. Gentleman's constituency, local anxiety is sometimes about things that have not been determined and may never be determined. The United States is considering locating phase 2 largely at sea and may never require land-based X-band radars. The phrase, "X-band radar" was used regularly when I dealt with questions in North Yorkshire. It is important to deal with each decision at the stage at which it is presented. There is no need to go further at this stage and speculate as some perhaps less helpful commentators have done. I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's observations about the local economy are passed on to the appropriate Department.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Given the weight of expert criticism of missile defence, the unanimous conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the extent of anxiety in the House, and, according to repeated polls, the opposition of more than 70 per cent. of the British public, will we have an opportunity for a specific debate and democratic vote on the issue in the House?
Mr. Hoon: I have outlined the nature of the debate that the Government propose. There will be an opportunity for my hon. Friend to contribute to it as he has done in the past. However, I do not accept his assertions about the weight of expert criticism. Even if it were overwhelming, my hon. Friend and other critics have to face the central point of my statement's conclusion. If a missile is in the air and targeted at the United Kingdom, threatening catastrophic consequences to the people of this country, does he seriously claim that we should not use every effort to try to protect them?
Mr. David Curry: Would it not have been better for the Secretary of State to state clearly that, if the United States believes the system to be essential to its security and requests United Kingdom assistance, it would be politically almost inconceivable to deny the request given the importance of our relations? That would be more convincing than relying on the thin arguments in the consultation document and the serious doubts about the efficacy of the technology, especially the identification of decoy missiles, to which the document specifically refers. Can we be absolutely certain that subsequent developments, including any that involve Menwith Hill in my constituency, will be subject to a separate consultation and decision-making process?
Mr. Hoon: No one who holds a position such as mine is in any doubt about the importance of our political
704
relationship and close friendship with the United States. I do not qualify that in any way. However, as I have said on several occasions, it is important to show that this matter is of interest and beneficial to the people of the United Kingdom and to our wider relationships in the NATO alliance. That is the test that the people of the United Kingdom want satisfied. I believe that it is satisfied and I therefore recommend accepting the United States request.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I have received hundreds if not thousands of letters, including some from constituents of the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). They all oppose national missile defence and upgrading Fylingdales. I do not think that those people are stupid or misguided. They point out that they believe that it will make them more of a target, and that far from protecting them it endangers them even more. They have a right to express that opinion. I agree with them. It is absolutely dreadful that once again we are acquiescing to President Bush's requests, in opposition to the people who elected us. The last opinion polls showed that more than 70 per cent. of the people of this country were opposed. The consultation has been a sham. I repeat the request of the shadow Secretary of State that we should have a debate purely on the implications of our going down this very dangerous path.
Mr. Hoon: I dealt in my statement with the suggestion, which I recognise is made by those opposed to the proposals, that somehow certain parts of the country might become more of a target as a result of this decision. I dealt with those arguments. I do not believe that there is an enhanced specific threat to Fylingdales or the immediate area, or for that matter to North Yorkshire.
Equally, my hon. Friend must think through the implications of such concerns. There are, rightly, defence bases around the country. The armed forces are located in different parts of the United Kingdom. It is important that we recognise that the decisions that the Government take in relation to matters of this kind are in the interests of the country as a whole and of our national security, and it is right that each part of the country plays its part in contributing to that national security.
Mr. John Maples: The Secretary of State has this absolutely right. I am sure he will agree that this is not the most difficult decision he will have to make this year. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) that it is inconceivable that we would have said no to the United States.
However, I think the need for British decisions is perhaps slightly closer than the right hon. Gentleman is letting on. The United States has made a great deal of progress—much faster progress than was originally envisaged—with its test programme. While it may not have decided what systems to deploy, I think it has taken a decision to deploy. At boost phase, missile defence benefits the whole world, because at that stage nobody knows exactly where the missile is going. The Secretary of State shakes his head, but I think that that is probably so. But if we are to defend against missiles in re-entry

705
phase there is a need for locally based and probably ground-based interceptors. Does the memorandum of understanding with the United States to which the right hon. Gentleman referred effectively give us an option to use United States technology to base re-entry defence interceptors in and around the United Kingdom?
Mr. Hoon: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have, in the words of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, been entirely candid with the House. We have not received any further requests from the United States. We recognise that there is a range of options that the United States is looking at. That is precisely the purpose of the test bed that the United States is establishing. I entirely accept from the hon. Gentleman that the United States has made remarkable scientific progress in the work that it has concluded so far, but in many respects that has led it away from a decision to site X-band radar on land. It has given it a range of options that will allow a system to evolve and develop that may not require any further basing in the United Kingdom. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that as and when any such decisions are required in the United Kingdom the House will be the first to hear of them.
Mr. Nigel Beard: If the technology is successfully developed, what are the prospects of extending the missile defence umbrella to the United Kingdom and the rest of NATO?
Mr. Hoon: That is one of the aspects of the United States request that have led me to conclude that this would be in the security interests of the United Kingdom, because, unlike the situation with an earlier version of these proposals, which was specifically entitled national missile defence—"national" referring to the United States—President Bush has indicated his concern that missile defence and the programme being developed by the United States should be made available to the United Kingdom and other NATO allies, should that be appropriate, and should those countries decide on it at an appropriate stage. That is a remarkably helpful offer for the United Kingdom.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that even those of us who doubt the cost-effectiveness and utility of missile defence think that he is right to respond positively to a proper request by an ally? Would he remind the House of, and put a note into the Library explaining, the precise command allocations of responsibility as between the United States and the United Kingdom within the Fylingdales base?
Mr. Hoon: Those are matters that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely right to raise. They are still the subject of further detailed negotiations. As regards the upgrade implications, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will understand that I shall not be able to inform the House of all the aspects, but I undertake to ensure that the House is properly informed of the general outline of those arrangements.
Mr. Kevan Jones: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the extensive press coverage that
706
there has been, particularly in the defence press, about the development of X-band radar. Members of the Defence Committee this week received a document from Yorkshire CND raising concerns that the upgrade of RAF Fylingdales is part of the development programme for X-band. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that it is not?
Mr. Hoon: What I can assure the House is that there has been no specific decision about the deployment of X-band radar. As I have already said, the developments so far in the United States indicate that in fact an X-band radar may not necessarily have to be located on land, and certainly not anywhere in the immediate vicinity of RAF Fylingdales.
Mr. John Wilkinson: The Secretary of State's decision today is a wise and prudent precautionary measure that should have the full support of the House. Would the battle of Britain have been won in 1940 if Dowding had not been allowed to deploy radars around our coast from 1936? In these circumstances, surely vulnerability cannot be the best policy.
Mr. Hoon: Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman makes an appropriate historical analogy. As someone who has looked carefully at the history of that conflict, I think that he is absolutely right to recognise that as our technology develops we must use it to provide greater security for our people.
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: I would have liked to give a personal perspective on Fylingdales, but unfortunately my written request to the Secretary of State to visit was refused, unlike that of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch), I understand.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that his slavish devotion to American policy in this area adds further to global destabilisation? That destabilisation is evidenced by, for example, North Korea's alleged withdrawal from the non-proliferation treaty, a treaty that the United States never ratified, following on from its abrogation of the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty. It is also reflected in the Chinese military's plan to reconfigure its nuclear forces to overcome missile defence, as and when it is ever developed, and most recently lately by the Indians, who are developing an Agni-3 rocket and are discussing dropping the nonuclear-first-strike option from their military planning.
In the Government's Gadarene rush to embrace every crackpot notion foisted on us by the ideologues in Washington, I should like the Secretary of State to point out where the independence of thought and the independence of policy are in the British Government, reflecting true British needs.
Mr. Hoon: I am sorry to hear my hon. Friend and former Ministry of Defence colleague make those observations. I am sure that he would have had the opportunity to visit RAF Fylingdales when he was a Defence Minister, had he chosen to take it. Indeed, I do not recall his making those kinds of observations at that time. I accept that his views have changed in the interim, but even allowing for those changes I would ask him to look carefully at, for example, the details of the Moscow

707
treaty. The views that he now espouses are the views of people who have long advocated the importance of reducing the numbers of offensive systems available to the then Soviet Union, now to Russia, and to the United States. The Moscow treaty, as a result of the confidence that the United States now has because of the potential developments of missile defence, has seen the most significant reduction of deployable defensive systems in history. That remarkable success is the result of the end of the treaty that he says should continue.
Again, looking at the missile defence situation, I simply do not understand—I am perfectly willing to hear any argument—why a purely defensive system attracts so much criticism. I could certainly understand my hon. Friend setting out criticism of the further development of offensive systems, but hardly of this kind of defensive proposal.
Hywel Williams: The Secretary of State should be aware that his statement will be greeted with dismay by many people in Wales, Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom, not least among members of his own party. Given that the United States has refused to rule out the first use of nuclear weapons, will he not concede one fact: that missile defence is a misnomer—if it works, it might indeed be a defence, but it might also provide the very shield that the United States requires to launch the very first use of nuclear weapons?
Mr. Hoon: The United Kingdom has also consistently refused to rule out a no-first-use policy, for understandable and clearly well-established reasons. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to his views and to express them, but, if he is to put them in the context of wider defence policy and thinking, he needs to set out more clearly his objections to what is, as I have just said, a purely defensive system that threatens no one and can ultimately only protect people in countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States, which are fully functioning democracies.
Glenda Jackson: As the Government believe that what they have presented as the greatest threat to world peace—Iraq—can be eradicated by conventional military means, from whom do the Government believe that the threat will come that warrants an anti-ballistic missile system? It was not radar that won the battle of Britain, but Spitfires, so it is perfectly clear that radar alone will not act as a defence for this country. Are we considering a situation in which anti-ballistic missiles will be placed in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Hoon: I am now at risk of sparking a historical debate, but I accept for the avoidance of doubt that a combination of radar, Spitfires and other aircraft won the battle of Britain.
As for Iraq, I set out very clearly in my statement that we regard the threat from Iraq as the single most significant threat, particularly if Iraq is allowed the opportunity to continue to develop not only its weapons of mass destruction, but its means of delivery. I am somewhat puzzled by my hon. Friend's question because, understandably, for reasons that I well recognise, she has been among the most assiduous
708
opponents of any proposal to deal with the threat from Iraq by conventional means. She cannot have it both ways: she cannot argue against conventional means of dealing with Iraq, as well as against the proposal to defend this country and other countries against the threat that Iraq poses. One or other must be a way forward.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: The Secretary of State and I have different ideas of candour. I do not think that it is particularly candid to come to the House on 17 December and say, "Surprise, surprise—we have just had a formal request from the Americans to upgrade the radars at Fylingdales" and then, eight sitting days later, come to the House and say, "We are minded to accept it." The fact is that this issue has been around for a very long time.
The Secretary of State's Parliamentary Private Secretary and I visited Washington and attended a briefing at the Pentagon in 1998, when it was made absolutely clear to us that the United States welcomed full British involvement in ballistic missile defence. It would have been much better had we been fully on board as early as possible, not least because the United States would have known in planning, preparing and designing the system that it could have relied on the United Kingdom as a full partner to base in the United Kingdom whatever would be required to make the system a success.
If the Secretary of State continues to insist that he will make decisions as he gets formal requests, he is, frankly, not being candid with the House. It is about time that he made it clear, as he did in making a strong case for the system, that the Government fully support it and are fully committed to it.
Mr. Hoon: Not for the first time recently, I would urge the hon. Gentleman to look carefully at what I have said and to reflect on whether he is suggesting that in any way I have not been candid with the House.
On timing, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to look at the relevant White House website, which will indicate precisely when the President took the decision on the development of missile defence for the United States. He will see that that decision was taken towards the end of last year and that the request to the United Kingdom followed shortly after. I would be perfectly content with any criticism that might be made from the United States if in any way the hon. Gentleman could verify it, but he is wrong to try to interpret that. There is no such criticism; the United States recognises the contribution that the United Kingdom is prepared to make, and I understand that it is extremely appreciative of the decision-making process in which the United Kingdom has engaged.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: If the technology works, why should it not be given to India and Pakistan?
Mr. Hoon: What is interesting about my hon. Friend's question is that, if the technology can be made to work, the United States has indicated that, in quite a short timeframe, it would be willing to go beyond simply protecting United States territory and consider making such a system available to NATO allies. I see no reason

709
in principle why, if such a system can be made to work, it should not be extended further, but that is obviously a matter for the United States.
Mr. Mark Francois: I welcome the spirit of the Secretary of State's announcement this afternoon because it could have important benefits for the security of the United Kingdom and, indeed, for that of our NATO allies. In considering the whole issue, is it not important to recall that, throughout the cold war, the old Soviet Union maintained a BMD system of sorts—the ABM-1 Galosh system, which ringed Moscow—and that, even today under the new partly democratic Russia, elements of that system still remain in place? If it is all right for the Russians to have such technology in some form, should not we be thinking about it too?
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely accurate and well-informed observation, with which I entirely agree.
Harry Cohen: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that this is an act of proliferation, that star wars technology, when eventually developed, can have an offensive capacity as well as a defensive one, that it will spur Russia and China to have serviceable nuclear weapons and that it will be another blow to arms control treaties? If, as the Prime Minister has said, the Government are passionately for non-proliferation, why were arms control treaties not even on his listen-back agenda for the United States that he announced last week?
Mr. Hoon: I have debated such issues before with my hon. Friend. I entirely accept his sincerity, but, if he will forgive me for saying so, given that he has long and understandably argued against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, which he has done in a very principled way, I do not understand why he regards the development of a defensive system as strategically threatening, particularly when Russia is cutting its deployable offensive systems as a result of agreements made with the United States.
If a missile defence system can be developed, it will not only act as a very clear deterrent to the development of long-range ballistic missiles, but, of course, encourage those countries—for example, North Korea—that could spend their hard-earned foreign currency much better on feeding their own people to do so. My hon. Friend could well apply the logic that he properly applies to such issues but reach an entirely different conclusion: that the development of missile defence systems was encouraging a reduction in proliferation.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: The Secretary of State will be aware that there are several key United States bases in East Anglia and that they contribute a vast amount to the local economy. The overwhelming majority of people in East Anglia will welcome this strategic move as a good way to cement the special relationship. In his statement, he mentioned a new technical memorandum of understanding. Surely
710
British businesses want not just an MOU, but firm assurances that they will be able to bid for some of those key contracts.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations. As I said earlier, such decisions are ultimately about ensuring national security, which includes East Anglia and other parts of the United Kingdom. Part of our approach is certainly to give opportunities to British industry, and there have already been discussions about the potential involvement of leading companies in the United Kingdom in missile defence. Obviously, we shall now wish to pursue that in the light of the decision that I have taken and the proposal that I have made to the House.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that China's rational response to the development of missile defence would be to increase the number of its missiles and warheads—possibly including dummy missiles—to get through an American missile defence system? If that is China's rational response—I believe that it will be—does my right hon. Friend accept that that could have a serious knock-on effect on other regional neighbours such as India and Pakistan, and on into the middle east? Does he also accept that that is why these systems are potentially so destabilising for the whole world?
Mr. Hoon: As my hon. Friend will be aware from his time in the Foreign Office, China has had an extensive programme for developing ballistic missile defence systems for many years. Given that US proposals for missile defence have never been designed to deal with multiple missiles addressing a particular target, and that they are solely designed to deal with individual missiles from states of concern—which do not include China, as my hon. Friend will be aware—I do not believe that China would need to respond in any way to this proposal. Indeed, China has reacted in a very calm way to the United States' announcement, towards the end of last year, of its intention to develop missile defence systems.
Ms Diane Abbott: The Secretary of State will be aware that, outside the ranks of the Conservative party, there is very little support for our involvement in George W. Bush's national missile defence programme. That is partly because there are technical doubts as to whether the system will actually work, and partly because, although the Secretary of State may not deem this to be proliferation, some nation states, notably China, certainly do, privately, deem it to be proliferation and, as has been said earlier, may well step up their response, which would destabilise things internationally. It is also because the real and present threat to the people of Britain is not a long-range missile from North Korea, but the kind of terrorism that we saw so tragically on 9/11, and the kind of terrorism that was identified last night. The question that many people outside the ranks of the Conservative party will be asking is whether, when George Bush says "Jump!", our only response is to be "How high?"
Mr. Hoon: I fundamentally disagree with my hon. Friend. I have spent years travelling the country, visiting

711
not only Labour party organisations up and down the United Kingdom but other groups as well, and it has not been my experience that there is very little support for the proposals. Indeed, my experience is that, when the threat is discussed, there is a completely different response: people want to know what we propose to do about it. My hon. Friend needs to look a little more carefully at North Korea. I would not place any confidence in decisions being taken there, not least because, if it goes ahead and abandons its commitment not to test-fly longer range missiles, the United Kingdom would come within range of a missile from that country. I think that my hon. Friend's constituents would want to know, as would mine, what action the Government were taking to deal with such a threat.
Mr. Mark Hendrick: Given that national missile defence was originally aimed at protecting the United States, are there no plans for facilities similar to Fylingdales to be established elsewhere in Europe, so that both the United Kingdom and an enlarged Europe can be protected?
Mr. Hoon: As I said in my statement, the United States made a parallel request to Denmark in relation to a radar facility in Greenland. As the US President has said, part of the process that the United States is undertaking involves the need to ensure that any deployable system would, as it is developed, protect not only the United States but its NATO allies.
Mr. Michael Clapham: May I urge my right hon. Friend to reconsider his interim decision? I acknowledge his duty to protect the citizens of the United Kingdom and that the system is a defensive system. Nevertheless, I believe that it will unwittingly add to proliferation. In his further assessment, will he look at the role of the military industrial complex and decide whether it is the real driver in this matter? May I also refer him to the then President Eisenhower's statement of 40 years ago, which highlighted the dangers of the military industrial complex being involved in just this kind of programme?
Mr. Hoon: I appreciate the sincerity with which my hon. Friend puts his case, but I would invite him to consider this point. He says that missile defence might unwittingly add to proliferation, but it will be developed to protect democracies. It will be developed to protect the United States, the United Kingdom and members of the NATO alliance—a fundamental prerequisite of which is that its members should be democratic societies. My hon. Friend is saying that if we do not develop missile defence to protect those democracies, we will be relying on countries such as Iraq or North Korea—neither of which could remotely be described as democracies at present—not to threaten the United Kingdom. If I went to my hon. Friend's constituency and discussed those issues with his constituents, I am pretty sure on which side of the line they would fall, because I suspect that they are not greatly dissimilar to my own. They would say, "Why shouldn't you protect us against the kind of threat that could come from countries like North Korea and Iraq?" With the greatest
712
possible respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think they would say that those countries could be relied on not to develop a threat to the United Kingdom and its citizens.
Jeremy Corbyn: It is a very sad day indeed when a Secretary of State comes to the House 29 days after confirming that an application has been received from the United States to tell us that he is minded to accept it. Will he confirm that, in reality, the decision to go ahead with national missile defence was made a long time ago, and that it will mean that we are no longer able to support the ABM treaty? I suspect that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) has said, in future, the Secretary of State will ask us to remove ourselves from a series of other disarmament treaties as well. Is this not the day on which the United States, with British support, has started proliferation again? This is not an interim or technical decision; it is a fundamental departure from the process of disarmament of the past 30 years in the direction of re-armament, and it is being done in a very dangerous way, which can only result in a similar response from China and other nuclear powers.
Mr. Hoon: I believe that I have already dealt with most of the arguments set out by my hon. Friend. He has referred previously to support for the ABM treaty—I have mentioned this to him before—as though somehow the treaty still existed. It no longer exists. It was a treaty between the United States and, originally, the Soviet Union—now Russia, as its successor—and both parties now accept that it has served its useful purpose. In place of that treaty we now have something for which my hon. Friend has long argued: a very substantial reduction in the number of offensive systems. Given the consistency of my hon. Friend's approach to these matters, I should have thought that he would welcome the fact that the ABM treaty has been replaced, and that the Moscow treaty has allowed for that significant reduction for which he has understandably and rightly argued.
Alan Simpson: Will the Secretary of State concede that, had missile defence been in place, and had it worked, it would not have made a ha'p'orth of difference to the events of 11 September? Does he accept that it takes at least some explaining that, on the day on which the Prime Minister warned against weapons proliferation in an international context, we are signing up to something that will require us fundamentally to breach the outer space treaty, because missile defence will require the militarisation of space in ways that will take us not only into a vast territorial unknown but into a political unknown, allowing weapons use from space? To settle some of the wagering that has been taking place on the Back Benches, will the Secretary of State confirm just how many nanoseconds it took him to say yes to the United States' request for a further annexation of facilities in the United Kingdom—the 51st state of the USA?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend always manages to put his difficult questions with a good deal of courtesy. I can assure him that, as yet, the Government have no plans to install any facilities in Nottingham, South, but I am sure that, if he requests it in his normally persuasive way, that decision could be reconsidered.

713
More seriously, I do not understand the argument that the terrorist threat manifested in the appalling events of 11 September should take overwhelming priority in relation to any other threats that might happen in the world. I accept that there is an appalling terrorist threat—we have seen the tragic consequences of it in recent times in this country—but to suggest that that means that we should ignore all other threats, if that is what my hon. Friend was doing, is simply wrong.
We have a responsibility to protect the citizens of this country against all the threats that we reasonably detect and to take appropriate action. That is what we are doing. I shall report to the House regularly on developments that the United States proposes, including any that have implications for the outer space treaty. However, I do not approach the matter in the same way as my hon. Friend; I approach it in a way that I believe is in the interests and for the protection of the people of this country.

Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons)
2.21 pm
Bob Spink: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001; to make further provision relating to the confiscation of intoxicating liquor held by or for use by young persons in public and certain other places; and for connected purposes.
The Bill's aim is simply to restore to the police the power to remove all alcohol from young people in public places so that they do not consume it, get into trouble and cause mayhem in our communities. Let me first establish evidence of current youth drinking habits. The health and science section of the 11 January edition of The Week, under the heading "Teenage binge-drinkers", states:
"British teenagers are drinking more heavily than ever before—and they do it with the sole purpose of getting seriously drunk. Alcohol consumption among children aged 11 to 15 has almost doubled in the past decade…Of the 85 per cent. of 15-year-olds who drink, boys admit to consuming an average of 13.8 units a week—the equivalent of seven pints of lager—and girls 10.7 units. Most of this drinking occurs in just two nights."
Andrew McNeill of the Institute of Alcohol Studies said:
"What we're seeing is an epidemic of binge-drinking. By the time you're 15, getting slaughtered is a central part of your social activities."
I was inspired to do something about this partly by Peggy Grant, who sadly passed away on 23 December. When Peggy was Castle Point's mayor in 1995, she went on to the streets on dark, cold, wet nights at 9 and 10 o'clock, although she was 70, to meet, talk with and understand young people. She tried to solve the problems that we are all so vividly aware of to help the kids and the rest of the community. She found that alcohol was a major contributor to those problems. She had courage, enthusiasm and genuine warmth. She also had dedication, determination and great dignity as mayor of Castle Point. She cared for young and old alike, and was a role model for all politicians—a truly great Conservative mayor who will be much missed in Castle Point.
In 1995, there was, remarkably, no law to prevent young people and children from abusing alcohol in public places. So, with Peggy Grant's encouragement, I introduced a private Member's Bill to give the police powers to stop under-age alcohol abuse and take back control of our streets. My Bill was enacted in 1997 and it worked well across the nation, but then new Labour became the Government and the then Home Office Minister—not, I hasten to add, the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety, who is in his place—issued a press release stating that the under-age drinking confiscation measure, which meant my Bill, showed
"Labour's determination to crack down on crime and disorder". That was pure, unadulterated new Labour duplicity.
Last year, the Government's Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 removed the power that I had given the police to take unopened cans and bottles of alcohol from youngsters in public places. That was pure, unadulterated new Labour stupidity. The Prime Minister then claimed that he was giving all possible

715
powers to the police to tackle antisocial behaviour, street crime and drugs. That was pure, unadulterated new Labour hypocrisy.
To claim that my Bill was a new Labour initiative and try to take credit for it was a lie; to remove police powers to take alcohol from young children on our streets was stupid; and to claim that all is well and that all is being done on our streets is hypocrisy. So there we have it. New Labour says that it listens and that it acts to tackle crime. It says that it will protect our children and our communities, but it is simply arrogant, stupid and hypocritical—and the Prime Minister is personally responsible.
Let me set out some evidence on under-age drinking. A constituent who said that she would be honoured to be named in this place—I shall just call her Rosemary, however—bravely wrote to me to say:
"The recent change in law has undoubtedly confused youngsters in believing that it is now legal to smoke cannabis in public. I have observed over the past weekend two separate groups of youngsters in the bus shelter outside our house so doing…I wonder how many of them would actually indulge if they were not swigging alcohol at the same time.
It is my opinion that the overindulgence of alcohol is to blame for our youngsters experimenting in the first place…This does not only pertain to the 'odd joint' but harder drugs…crime, and mindless vandalism, the latter of which we see all too frequently…clear rules and laws must be set out to protect our youth and our future society from the somewhat soft approach of the left wing!
My husband and myself do not want to live in fear of street crime but it is always now in the front of our minds."
The House should listen to Rosemary's wisdom.
Let me set out what Basildon's Evening Echo said on 25 October. An article by Gary Pearson says:
"As many as 40 areas in Castle Point may be plagued with the problem of boozy youngsters, according to Tory councillor Bill Dick.
The St. Peter's ward representative voiced his concerns about drink-fuelled teenage nuisance after residents complained".
In another edition, the Evening Echo reported:
"Sgt Matt Bell, of Southend's Licensing Unit, said: 'We all know that there is a link between alcohol consumption and violence."'
On 12 April last year, Inspector Steve Rawlings of Castle Point police wrote to me:
"Youth nuisance and associated damage is a major problem…In the last few months I have spent many thousands of pounds in police overtime to try to resolve the problems…I am sure alcohol will only fuel the situation again. It is unfortunate that the powers you fought so long and hard to get introduced have once again been watered down, to make them virtually useless.
I refer of course to the seizure of alcohol from juveniles. The power was used to good effect during last year…but now its effectiveness has been substantially reduced. As we can now only seize open containers, it will mean that if we find someone with a four pack of lager, and only one tin is open, that is the only one we can seize leaving them with the remainder."
716
Those may be children of nine, 10 or 11 who are out at 10 o'clock on a Friday night. Inspector Rawlings continues:
"Isn't it a wonderful use of police time making us return four times (and maybe more) to carry out what we used to be able to do on the first occasion."
Bournemouth's The Daily Echo ran a campaign called "Where are your children?", which was launched just after my private Member's Bill became law. It said:
"Children as young as 13 are hitting the bottle in an epidemic of under-age drinking in Bournemouth.
Now police—increasingly on the receiving end of violence and abuse from drunken teenagers—have begun a major crackdown using new powers to seize alcohol from youngsters."
They were using my Bill. The newspaper continued:
"In just two and a half hours, 51 young people aged between 13 and 17 were stopped and searched and alcohol with an estimated value of £110 seized.
A search of a 15-year-old boy also revealed a craft knife capable of inflicting serious wounds."
The hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) told me that his local police are ignoring new Labour's new law and continuing to take unopened cans and bottles from youngsters in public places.
Thus the Government have contrived to make criminals of the police and to help youngsters into crime and drugs. All of us in this place know that the first use of drugs by young people most often takes place under the influence of alcohol. Such is the reality of a bankrupt, arrogant Government who have simply stopped listening.
This raises the question of why the Prime Minister removed the police power last year. Did he think that the police were improperly harassing young drunkards and thugs on our streets? Or he is simply out of touch? Or does he simply not care?
Perhaps the Government will now revert to the common-sense law that worked so well: my original Bill. They may use the Licensing Bill, although I doubt that that would be terribly appropriate. In the meantime, I ask the House to support my new Bill giving the police powers to stop out-of control, dangerous under-age drinking on our streets.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Bob Spink, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Peter Lilley, Mr. Frank Field, the Rev. Martin Smyth, Mrs. Angela Browning, Andy King, Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Sir Nicholas Winterton and Miss Ann Widdecombe.

CONFISCATION OF ALCOHOL (YOUNG PERSONS)
Bob Spink accordingly presented a Bill to extend and improve methods of electoral registration: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 11 July, and to be printed [Bill 43].
Orders of the Day
  Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill
    New Clause 8

      FREE PROVISION OF SERVICES IN WALES
      'The Assembly may by regulations made by statutory instrument make in relation to local authorities in Wales any provision which may be made by the Secretary of State under section 12 in relation to local authorities in England.'—[Jacqui Smith.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      2.33 pm
      The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      Government amendment No. 38.
      Mrs. Patsy Calton: I understand that the new clause would tighten up section 12(7), but would be grateful for confirmation from the Minister.
      Will the new clause give the Welsh Assembly powers simply to emulate the statutory instruments from the Secretary of State under section 12, or will it have any powers itself to produce fresh statutory instruments, within the confines of the section?
      Jacqui Smith: It depends how "tighten up" is defined, but the aim of the new clause is probably not to tighten up the position relating to Wales. The Government seek to balance the commitment to devolution of health matters to the Assembly with maintaining the original purpose of the new power, which was to make community equipment and intermediate services only free of charge. The new power in part 2 has been taken with specific services in mind, and with a clear purpose—to help reduce delayed discharge caused by services in which integration is hampered by charging.
      The new clause, and the regulation-making power that it gives the Assembly, will allow the Assembly to decide how to use the new power in Wales. The present wording would require Wales to replicate the regulations set by the Government in England. The new clause gives the Assembly more flexibility.
      Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I have just received an answer from the Department of Health concerning the number of Welsh patients treated in English hospitals. More than 4,000 are treated just in the five hospitals most commonly used along the border—the Countess of Chester hospital, the Royal Shrewsbury hospital, the Hereford hospital, the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt orthopaedic hospital, the Royal Liverpool University children's hospital, the Cardiothoracic centre in Liverpool, the Central Manchester hospital,
      718
      the Walton Centre for Neurology and Neurosurgery, the Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University hospitals and the United Bristol healthcare trust.
      What reciprocal arrangements will be made in regard to charging for any patients from Welsh local authorities whose discharge from English hospitals may be delayed?
      Jacqui Smith: I understand that the Assembly has decided not to introduce in Wales the incentives that we are introducing in the Bill. As for reciprocal arrangements, I understand that the discharge of fewer than three Welsh patients in English hospitals is being delayed. Because Wales has decided that it does not want to introduce reimbursement at this time, we currently have no plans for reciprocal arrangements. If Wales decides to implement reimbursement proposals, we shall need to consider the details then.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 3

      MEANING OF 'CARER' AND 'CARERS' ASSESSMENT'
      '(1) In this Part "carer", in relation to a qualifying hospital patient, means a person aged over 16 who—

      (a) provided (prior to admission in hospital) or intends to provide a substantial amount of care to the qualifying hospital patient on a regular basis once they are discharged, and

      (b) did not or will not provide this care—

      (i) by virtue of a contract of employment or other contract with any person, or

      (ii) as a volunteer for a voluntary organisation.

      (2) In subsection (1), "voluntary organisation" has the same meaning as in the National Assistance Act 1948.
      (3) The responsible authority shall inform any person where it appears to them that they may be entitled under section (1) of the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 and section (1) of the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 to request an assessment of their ability to provide and continue to provide care.
      (4) The assessment of the patient's needs under section (3)(3)(a) must take account of the results of any assessment undertaken of the carer's ability to provide and continue to provide care for the patient under the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 or the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 or both those Acts.'.—[Mr. Burstow.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Paul Burstow: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      New clause 9—Carers: duties—
      '(1) Further to fulfilment of the requirements under section 2(2) and (3) it shall the duty of the responsible authority to—

      (a) inform any person where it appears to them that they may be entitled under section (1) of the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 and section (1) of the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 to request an assessment of their ability to provide and continue to provide care;

      (b) ensure that the assessment carried out under the above provisions provide sufficient information in the care plan, or to make arrangements that a provider of services to the patient can carry out an appropriate

      719
      assessment, to satisfy Standards 3 and 4 of the National Minimum Care Standards for Care Homes and Standards 2 and 3 of the Draft National Minimum Care Standards for Domiciliary Care, as required by the Care Standards Act 2000.

      (2) Where, for the purposes of satisfying the fitness for purpose of proposed accommodation under the Care Standards Act 2000, the assessment procedure exceeds three days, the delayed discharge period shall be disapplied.'.
      Amendment No. 41A, in page 2, line 9, [Clause 2], after 'body', insert—
      'to consult with the patient and his carer, if he has one, to ascertain their views and preferences, and—

      (a) where informed consent is given, record that on the patient's file or

      (b) in the case where a patient lacks the mental capacity to give such consent, record on the file what steps it has taken to ensure that the patient's best interests have been duly considered, and'.

      Government amendment No. 27.
      Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 41, [Clause 3], at end insert—
      '(3A) Before making a decision under subsection (3) the responsible authority must—

      (a) consult the patient and his carer, if he has one;

      (b) inform them of the cost of the proposed care plans; and

      (c) obtain the consent of the patient and any carer and—

      (i) where informal consent is given, record that on the patient's file, or

      (ii) in the case where a patient lacks the mental capacity to give such consent, record on the file what steps it has taken to ensure that the patient's best interests have been duly considered.'.

      Government amendments Nos. 28 to 30.
      Amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 7, [Clause 3], at end insert—
      '(6A) The responsible NHS body must consult the patient and—

      (a) where informed consent is given, record that on the patient's file, or

      (b) in the case where a patient lacks the mental capacity to give such consent, record on the file what steps it has taken to ensure that the patient's best interests have been duly considered,

      before deciding what services (if any) it will make available following discharge.'.
      Amendment No.4, in page 3, line 7, [Clause 3], at end insert—
      '(6A) The responsible NHS body must take into account the views of the patient's carer, if he has one, before deciding what services (if any) it will make available following discharge.'.
      Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 9, [Clause 3], at end insert—
      '(7A) The responsible NHS body must give the patient and his carer, if he has one—

      (a) notice of the day on which it proposes to discharge the patient and—

      (i) where informed consent is given, record that on the patient's file, or

      (ii) in the case where a patient lacks the mental capacity to give such consent, record on the file what steps it has taken to ensure that the patient's best interests have been duly considered, and

      (b) information about their right to request a review if they disagree with the decision to discharge.'.

      Government amendments Nos. 32 to 34, 36 and 37, 39 and 40.
      Mr. Burstow: This is far the largest group of new clauses and amendments with which we shall deal, and it enables us to explore quite a few of the issues we touched on in Committee. I hope we shall receive further clarification from the Government today, not least on issues raised by our amendments and those tabled by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), which deal with some of Opposition Members' most fundamental criticisms of the Bill. We hope that even at this stage the Government will be minded to accept some of the amendments.
      New clauses 3 and 9, and Government amendments Nos. 27, 30, 32, 39 and 40, address a number of concerns that I raised in Committee. As drafted, the Bill says nothing about the rights of carers. They are seen as innocent bystanders who are left to pick up the pieces resulting from the discharge process.
      Research by Carers UK has repeatedly demonstrated poor hospital discharge practice. The new clauses are intended to ensure that carers do not bear the brunt of poor practice and are not victimised by over-zealous implementation of the Bill across the country. Research published about a year ago by Carers UK showed that anything between 70 and 77 per cent. of carers said that they had no choice about taking on caring responsibilities when the person for whom they cared left hospital. In other words, seven carers out of 10 were effectively dumped on and left to get on with it. That cannot be a satisfactory outcome of the way in which discharge is currently being handled in far too many hospitals across the country.
      The guidance published by the Government over the years says that carers should be consulted about discharge planning and that they should play an integral role at each stage of a patient's progress. However, all too often that does not happen in practice. The new clauses deal with that lack of consultation and assessment of carers' needs.
      Carers UK has followed up the research that it has done over the years and monitored how things have changed over time, so it is educational to look more closely at its research. For example, it has found that there has been a near doubling in the number of people being readmitted to hospital within two months of discharge—from 19 per cent. in 1999 to 43 per cent. in 2001. When the most recent survey by Carers UK asked why the rise had occurred, 45 per cent. of carers said that they felt that premature discharge was the cause of what might be considered a revolving door syndrome that meant that people returned to hospital as emergency readmissions.
      The problem of premature discharge from hospital was highlighted by last year's Audit Commission report entitled "Fully Equipped 2002—Assisting Independence". I referred to that report in Committee. The quotation that I shall read out now was referred to but the Minister did not then respond to the point that the Audit Commission was making. The report stated:
      "In the case of community equipment services in particular, social services departments were finding themselves under increasing pressure to cope with the demand of people being discharged earlier from acute hospitals. The policy to support the immediate needs of the NHS was putting pressure on other parts

      721
      of social services' home-care budgets and driving up eligibility criteria for those who needed less intensive support to help them to stay at home—risking unnecessary hospital admissions and increasing demands on the NHS."
      In other words, the policy becomes self-defeating: ejecting people prematurely from the hospital only results in them returning for additional care.
      I raised the matter with the Minister in Committee, but on checking the record I found that she did not deal with the point in that debate. I hope that she will be able to do so today. By introducing a system of fines to bear down on delayed discharge problems in the NHS, new perverse incentives will be created elsewhere in the system that will distort priorities. The district auditors and the Audit Commission have found that that is already happening: the delayed discharge targets are already causing hospitals to become the priority of social services departments at the expense of others.
      There is nothing in the Bill to prevent that from happening. In fact the Bill promotes it. Many people wait in their homes for assessment by social services departments, and are often in desperate need of an appropriate package of care and support. It is bizarre to discover that the Bill means that the quickest way for them to get what they need will be to get themselves admitted to hospital. The fine will cause social services to focus on their need once they are occupying a hospital bed. However, because there is no fine attached to the fact that those people are not being assessed at home, that will not be prioritised.
      That is the perverse incentive that the Bill will create.
      2.45 pm
      Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely. Does he accept the Alzheimer Society's contention that the point that he makes about carers applies even more strongly to those looking after people suffering from that disease? Almost by definition, such patients are unable to give any input about what should happen to them. Carers often feel under enormous pressure to allow an inappropriate discharge and subsequent placement.
      Mr. Burstow: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about mental incapacity, and the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Woodspring in part deal with that. I shall return to matters connected with dementia later in my remarks.
      I want to follow up an undertaking that the Minister gave in response to an amendment that I moved in Committee that dealt with the question of charging carers for services. I pursued this matter in the previous Parliament in connection with the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000. It remains a concern for many carers.
      In Committee, the Minister acknowledged that it would not be right for carers to end up footing the bill for equipment. She said that the Government would return to the matter on Report. It is not clear which of the Government amendments under consideration deals with that point. I should be grateful if the Minister will make clear which amendment deals with the question of charging carers.
      In Committee, the Minister said that she would deal with matters to do with the regulations, several of which directly affect carers. It was useful that the Minister
      722
      wrote to members of the Committee setting out in summary terms the issues that the Government indented to cover through regulation.
      My first question is about clause 2(4)(a), which deals with
      "the form and contents of notices"
      of likely need, and the manner in which they are to be given. The explanatory notes say:
      "The intention is that the regulations ensure that the notice given by the NHS body is brief, but still contains necessary information. The notice only need contain the patient's name and location, the name of the NHS contact, the date of admission if this has not yet occurred, and the likely date of discharge if known."
      However, I hope that the Minister will reassure the House about whether carers and relatives will be notified at that stage. Neither the notes nor the Bill makes that clear. Will they be part of the process? I hope that the Minister will confirm that the regulations will recognise and acknowledge the role that carers play.
      The notes also stated:
      "Notice does not need to be a formal letter but will most likely consist of a fax or an email, either providing the necessary information or alerting social services to an update on a shared database".
      The phrase "shared database" reminded of last year's Audit Commission report entitled "Forget Me Not", which stated:
      "Effective information sharing between health and social care practitioners is a prerequisite to successful co-ordination."
      No one would disagree. The report continued:
      "Joint working and the single assessment process would be weakened without it. However, auditors found that shared case files, or easy access to each other's files, only existed in a tenth of areas, and partly so in only a further third…In other words, case notes were not shared in three-fifths of areas…Many agencies have developed. Or are in the process of developing, computerised patient or service user records. But auditors reported that health and social services IT systems were compatible in only a few areas."
      When one goes on reading the report to see what that meant in practice, one realises that in 89 per cent. of the areas surveyed by the Audit Commission there was no compatibility between the systems—yet the Government are planning to predicate regulations on such an ability. I hope that the Minister will say a little more about that, too. How will the proposal work in practice given that the systems will hamper the sharing of information?
      We on the Liberal Democrat Benches welcome amendments Nos. 27, 30, 32, 39 and 40 because they make provision for some of the concerns that Carers UK, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) and I have been raising. However, the amendments seem to fall short of placing a duty on social services departments to inform carers of their entitlement to an assessment. Indeed, Government amendment No. 27 states that the carer must ask for the assessment. In other words, the onus is placed on the carer. Surely during the stressful time in hospital associated with the planning of discharge it would not be unreasonable to place a duty on social services departments to give the carer notice of the fact that they are entitled to such an assessment if they want one.
      I look forward to the debate on the Opposition amendments on consent. The Liberal Democrats strongly support their purpose. The Bill is silent not only

      723
      on carers but on patients; there is absolutely no mention of patients. The provisions reflect an obsession with getting patients out of their beds as quickly as possible—and not necessarily in their best interests. The amendments are about ensuring that the interests of the patient are brought back into play. Under the Bill, the patient is seen as a passive recipient of whatever care or services the NHS or social services departments choose to supply.
      The issue of consent is particularly relevant to patients with dementia, to which the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) referred. Indeed, when giving evidence last year during the Health Committee's excellent inquiry into delayed discharge, Professor Ian Philp, the national director of older people's services, made the following relevant point:
      "dementia is a principal cause of delayed discharge because of the complexity that having dementia plus a physical illness produces in terms of developing a good discharge plan."
      He went on to make the point that 70 per cent. of occupants of ordinary nursing homes are elderly mentally infirm patients—people with dementia and other problems. There are serious pressures on services currently available to provide support for people with dementia and for their carers.
      We know that from the Audit Commission report, "Forget Me Not", in which there are some important findings on home care services, to which the hon. Gentleman also referred. Last year's report said:
      "Home care is one of the key services for supporting older people with mental health problems at home, provided it is given flexibly and sensibly. However, auditors found home-care workers with additional training in mental health in only one in seven areas."
      Only one in seven areas have people who are equipped with the skills to provide the services necessary to promote confidence in the fact that those with dementia will be safely discharged from hospital and will receive the support at home that they need. Surely that ought to concern the Government, although it does not appear to have been factored into the time scale for implementation of the Bill. Indeed, the Government have been hasty in introducing the legislation.
      Is the Minister confident that matters have been remedied since the Audit Commission's finding just last year? Surely the patchiness of provision of services for people with dementia ought to be addressed. Even the extra resources, which are welcome and for which I and my hon. Friends voted, will not deliver from clay one the extra EMI-trained staff to provide such home care and other much needed support.
      Amendment No. 5, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Woodspring, would rightly ensure that patients and carers are informed about the costs of the proposed care. That raises some questions for the Minister. First, clause 3 sets up the process of partial assessments—what package of community care services ought to be provided for the carer. The assessment is not of the carer's financial circumstances, so how on earth can social services departments complete a financial assessment in the time scales proposed, especially given the intrusive nature of such assessments?
      My second question is about consistency in NHS continuing care. As the Audit Commission found, there are wide variations in how the Government's guidance
      724
      on continuing NHS care provision is implemented. Over the past months there have been some very damning health ombudsman inquiry findings against strategic health authorities that have acted unlawfully in saying that someone is not entitled to free NHS continuing care and therefore must instead be means-tested by social services departments. As a result people have given up resources to which they are entitled, whether by selling their home or running down their bank balance. Given such evidence, will the Minister ensure, if and when the Bill is enacted, that we can be confident that there will be an assessment of a person's entitlement to such care from the outset?
      In Berkshire, the strategic health authority has been told as a result of the health ombudsman inquiries to trawl through records of the past few years to find when people have been wrongly pushed down the social services route and subjected to means-testing rather than receiving free continuing NHS care. That is the case not just in Berkshire but in Dorset, Wigan and Cambridgeshire. Will the Minister ensure that strategic health authorities will conduct those trawls, which have been requested by the health ombudsman; otherwise many people will feel that the guidance issued by the Department and the way in which it has been interpreted by health authorities run contrary to the decisions of the courts and rob people of money? People are having to pay for what is fundamentally NHS care.
      Clause 3(8) deals with the circumstances for the withdrawal or cessation of the effect of a notice, where someone is awaiting discharge from hospital. If that person is told that they are not entitled to free continuing NHS care and they appeal, will the Minister confirm that the clock-on fines imposed on the local authority will stop?
      We hope that the Government will be able to offer answers to some of the issues raised by the amendments that I have highlighted. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle will be able briefly to address Government amendment No. 37 to which I have not spoken. Unless both carers and patients are covered by the Bill and their rights are properly protected, the measure will not be satisfactory and should not pass through this House.
      Mr. Simon Burns: I will speak to amendments Nos. 41A, 5, 3, 4 and 2, which deal with empowering patients and particularly carers. In many ways, as has been said, the amendments complement and add to the new clauses moved by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow).
      It is right to say from the outset that it is extraordinary that throughout what the Opposition regard as a nasty and counterproductive measure there are no references to carers and patients or any powers and entitlements granted to them. Yet it is patients who are at the receiving end of the Bill, as are the carers, who are, as no one in the House would disagree, the unsung heroes of our society because of the tremendous work that they do in looking after loved ones and family members.
      3 pm
      Clause 3 highlights the fact that all too often carers are ignored—taken for granted—and there is an assumption that they will do their duty and look after

      725
      their relatives or those whom they care for. I consider that situation to be the wrong way round, which is why I believe it so important that these amendments and new clauses put on the face of the legislation protections and aids and assistance to patients and, particularly, to carers.
      Mr. Hilton Dawson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that some of the amendments that he is speaking to are completely unnecessary, that some of what he has said is an insult to the social work profession, and that we cannot simply lay down in the House what social care professionals should do in every aspect of their work? Will he celebrate with me the fact that we can rely on the professionalism and ability of social workers in local authorities?
      Mr. Burstow: What complacent rubbish.
      Mr. Burns: Unusually, I am inclined to agree with the Liberal Democrats. I think that I am right in saying that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) was a social worker, so may I first say that, despite his cheap jibe, what I have said so far in no way criticises or attacks social workers, because they also have a very difficult job to do, and are often not given the credit for the work that they do? I think that carers' organisations and carers will be slightly surprised by the hon. Gentleman's comments, because they do feel aggrieved, and if he has bothered to take the time to read any of the briefings on the Bill from carers' organisations he will know that they do feel very aggrieved that the Bill makes no mention of carers or the role of carers.
      Mr. Waterson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the point here is not the dedication of individual social workers but the pressures that social services departments will feel under? Indeed, the Bill is designed to make them feel those pressures, which will in turn distort the priorities that they might otherwise have in terms of care and packages for individual patients?
      Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend has picked up an extremely relevant and important point. I wish the Government had better appreciated the implications of what the Bill seeks to do, because, as the Minister knows, it will be carers who bear the brunt of poor discharge procedures, and we believe that those will arise as a result of the Bill.
      Ms Meg Munn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Burns: No, I will not; I want to make some progress.
      We tabled the amendments because between 1999 and 2001 readmissions of patients within two months of being discharged nearly doubled, from 19 per cent. to 43 per cent. The proportion of carers who felt that early discharge was at fault rose correspondingly from 23 per
      726
      cent. to 45 per cent., and 77 per cent. of carers said that they were not given a choice about taking on caring responsibilities. That is why—
      Andy Burnham rose—
      Ms Munn rose—
      Mr. Burns: I will not give way.
      We need to have the new clause and the amendments on the face of the Bill to enshrine in law the proper procedures.
      Andy Burnham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Burns: I am sorry; I want to make some progress.
      I want to deal in order with the amendments that the official Opposition have tabled. Amendment No. 5 is intended to ensure that the patient—and, where applicable, the carer—is aware of what will be provided on discharge, so that they know whether they would wish to accept that plan. The amendment also addresses issues where the patient lacks capacity. As clause 3(3) currently reads, there is no involvement with the patient, only agreement between the national health service and social services—
      Ms Munn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Burns: No, I will not.
      The amendment would ensure that the patient and, just as important, their carer were fully aware of the cost of their continuing care and aware that they had consented to it. The importance of such knowledge and consent is emphasised by a case that my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) drew to my attention. He has a constituent who has been confronted with what I think the House would rightly agree is a grave injustice with regard to free care under the Coughlan case. A Mrs. Airey, who is the mother of my right hon. Friend's constituent and holds power of attorney, was suddenly sent a bill for £7,000 by the care home to which her mother had been transferred from hospital by social services in Yorkshire. She had made no agreement, written or verbal, to pay anything. When she replied that the contract with the care home had been made by social services, and that her mother could not be asked to pay, she received a telephone call last Sunday week from the home manager, who said that he had consulted social services and that her mother would not be able to continue in the home if she did not pay. Social services wrote last week to say that my right hon. Friend's constituent must pay "to protect her mother's place in the home", and that she had made the contract with the home. Mrs. Airey is adamant that she had done no such thing. As the House will appreciate, there is now a major dispute as to who placed the contract and who is financially responsible for paying the bill.

      727
      I believe that an amendment like amendment No. 5, with the plans in the new clause and the other supplementary amendments, would overcome that sort of confusion and argument, because there would be greater clarity at the point of discharge.
      Ms Munn rose—
      Mr. Burns: I will give way, but then I shall make progress.
      Ms Munn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so generous. He obviously has a different copy of the Bill from the one that I had. Perhaps he could point out where in the Bill it repeals legislation that already requires care plans to be in place and legislation that gives every carer the right to an individual assessment.
      Mr. Burns: The hon. Lady is missing the point because—
      Mr. Dawson: No, she is not.
      Mr. Burns: She is. If I could explain for a minute, perhaps the hon. Lady will understand. The trouble is that, regardless of the legislation that the hon. Lady is referring to, the Bill will, in effect, cause serious problems by putting pressure on local authorities to ensure that patients are often wrongly or inappropriately discharged from hospital and inappropriately placed in alternative forms of care, so as to avoid a fine under the Bill. That is why I, my hon. Friends and, I think, the Liberal Democrats believe that to protect against that occurrence and to minimise that possibility, the Bill, if it reaches the statute book, should have clearly defined rights and protections for carers and for patients, so as to seek to avoid an unpleasant and unfortunate by-product of a piece of legislation that is deeply flawed.
      Mr. Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Burns: No. I told the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) that I would take one intervention and then would make progress.
      Amendment No. 3 ensures that national health bodies will consult patients as well as local authorities before it is decided what services, if any, will be made available following their discharge from hospital. The amendment ensures that the patient is informed and consents to whatever NHS services are to be provided. It also aims to deal with those people who are unable to give such consent in the absence of mental incapacity legislation.
      Amendment No. 4 would place a further duty on NHS bodies simply to ensure that the views of the carer are considered when making arrangements for health services following the discharge of a patient. The wording is deliberate. The NHS body must simply take into account the views of the carer. It need not necessarily agree or act on those views, but it will have a duty to take them into account.
      Amendment No. 2 would introduce a new subsection to ensure that patients and carers are also aware of when they are likely to be discharged and can ask for a review. It also aims to deal with people who are unable to give consent due to mental incapacity.
      728
      The amendments and new clauses are needed in the Bill. For that reason, and given that we discussed the subject at considerable length in Committee, I hope that the Minister has had time to reflect and is now minded to accept this strengthening of the legislation. I am sure that she will not doubt, as I certainly do not, that carers and patients need to be protected under this part of the Bill.
      Glenda Jackson: If memory serves me correctly, the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has surely come somewhat late to concerns about carers. I cannot remember one piece of Conservative health service legislation between 1992 and 1997 that enshrined the rights of carers on the face of a Bill. In that five-year period, they may have introduced the possibility of the carer's needs being assessed, but no statutory duty was placed on local authorities and they did not have to deliver.
      I frankly acknowledge to the Minister that my reason for speaking to this group of amendments is anecdotal, but some of my constituents have expressed concern to me. They perceive that, as carers for someone who is frail or, in one instance, suffers from dementia, pressure could conceivably be placed upon them, as social services could be fined under the Bill if the NHS facility that is caring for their loved one says that he or she is ready to leave hospital but no alternative facilities can be provided. Even though Camden is an excellent authority in that respect, there are difficulties with finding available facilities locally. That is the overriding concern of my constituents.
      In some instances, the carer is as frail as the individual who is in hospital, as I pointed out when we discussed the Bill in the House before. One such case involves a wife whose husband was in hospital. She became ill and, even though he had recovered, there was no one at home who could care for him. No interim placement was available in the locality and the couple had no relatives who could visit him in the place where he was to be temporarily cared for.
      Those are the sorts of issues that are causing concern among carers and patients. They believe that undue pressure will be placed on their local authority to move their loved one from an NHS facility. In some instances, they know that the loved one will be returned not to their home, because no one there is capable of caring for them, but to a facility outside the local area.
      My constituents are also concerned about what will happen when someone is to be cared for at home but the home requires a great deal of work to make it feasible for the carer to care for them, or for a carer with additional domiciliary care to do so. There again, some of my constituents believe that unnecessary pressure will be placed on local authorities as a result of the fines in the Bill and that the authority will in turn put additional pressure on them.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to say something to calm the fears of my constituents.
      3.15 pm
      Mr. Waterson: I speak in support of the majority of the amendments in the group, but in particular those tabled by my hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend

      729
      the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox)—amendments Nos. 41A, 5, 3 and 4 on the consent of patients and their carers.
      Those of us who were members of the Committee and who tried to improve the Bill were disappointed not least at this important—indeed, central—flaw in the legislation. The Bill is a consent-free zone. Patients are treated as a sort of commodity, or as counters to be moved around the board to the best advantage of the agencies involved. It does not ensure that they or their families or carers will be consulted, let alone have their views taken into account when it comes to the timing of their discharge and the sort of care that they will be discharged into.
      We will return to that issue, but as hon. Members on both sides of the House said on Second Reading and in Committee, it is extraordinary that the Government want to introduce this sledgehammer measure at a time when there are encouraging signs throughout the country and in east Sussex in particular—part of which I represent—of closer working between the different agencies. There have been problems. I do not think that any sensible observer of that aspect of the care scene would argue otherwise. However, there is now much greater evidence of better organisation within the different bodies and of greater co-operation. For example, although there continues to be a problem with bed blocking and delayed discharges in my area, the figure is much lower than it was a year ago. Indeed, my local hospital, Eastbourne District General, recently opened a discharge suite that is designed to ease the transition of patients out of beds that they no longer need to occupy earlier in the day and to the form of care to which they are to move.
      Mr. Dawson: Does the hon. Gentleman regard those new levels of co-operation as a new Labour achievement? They were certainly not evident in any Tory legislation or policy during the 18 years for which the Tories were in power.
      Mr. Waterson: The hon. Member for social workers, or whatever his constituency is, misses the point again. If the Government are going to try to take credit for solving the problem, they should certainly take the credit for creating it in the first place. In my part of east Sussex, the problem can solely be placed at the door of the Government.
      There has been closer working between the agencies, in particular since control of the county council changed hands. The Tory administration has gone to great lengths to work more closely with the NHS and so forth. If blame is to be allocated locally—perhaps an element of consensus may spring up across the Chamber on this—the eight years during which the Liberal Democrats ran the county council contributed to the problem.
      Ms Munn: Opposition Members have short memories. I was first introduced to the term "bed blocking" during my social work training back in 1985–86, under a Government of the political persuasion of the current official Opposition. The problem has existed for many years. Why, after all this
      730
      time, are the Conservatives so concerned about the fact that the Government have decided to do something about it, especially in areas where the progress made is not as it should be?
      Mr. Waterson: I have not had the benefit of social work training—I am sure that that is a massive failing on my part. Two things need to be said. First, there has always been bed blocking, although the title attached to it has changed over the years. However, my constituency experience during the past 10 years is that whereas it used to be largely a winter phenomenon, it has become an all-year-round phenomenon of substantial proportions. At different times in the past couple of years, my local hospital has had the equivalent of two or three wards full of people who should not be in hospital. It is one of the lasting monuments to the Labour Government that they have created waiting lists not only to get into hospital but to get out.
      Secondly, the Government appear to be convinced that the Bill is the solution, even though what they propose flies in the face of the conclusions reached by everyone else with any experience of the problems—not only Conservative Members of Parliament, but the Local Government Association, the Association of Directors of Social Services and the NHS. The Bill has not a friend in the world, apart from some Labour Members, and quite a few of them have expressed disquiet since the idea was stumbled across. It is another example of the Government's knee-jerk reaction to problems. All I can say to them is, "Welcome to Government." Normally, there are no simple solutions to complex problems.
      If the hon. Lady is saying that the Bill is the answer—that some genius boffin at the Department of Health has produced a wonderful solution to the problem—why not pilot it? Why not follow the advice of bodies such as Age Concern and not implement the Bill across the board until 2004? Why not try it first in one or two areas? By all means choose those areas where the problem is perceived to be chronic. The Minister will concede, if she has not already done so in previous debates, that good progress is being made in east Sussex, but if there are pockets where the problem is extremely bad, why not pilot the provisions of the Bill in those areas and wait and see, rather than wasting the time, effort and resources of hard-pressed social services departments and NHS staff throughout the country?
      Moving on to the practical details, I have already said that the Bill has no friends, but in an intervention on the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) I mentioned what the Alzheimer's Society has to say. The society is extremely worried. It makes the point that
      "There are over 700,000 people with dementia in the UK",
      and that
      "Three-quarters of people in long term care have Alzheimer's or another form of dementia."
      In its briefing, the society rightly states:
      "The Bill makes no reference to issues of consent",
      and adds that
      "the proposals place undue pressure on unpaid carers."
      The concerns that were rightly expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam about

      731
      carers generally apply in spades to carers of people with Alzheimer's or other forms of dementia. The Alzheimer's Society briefing continues:
      "Many carers feel pressured into moving a person with dementia into a care home that they feel is unable to care appropriately for the needs of the person with dementia."
      The briefing ends:
      "The Alzheimer's Society is concerned that the proposals will increase pressure on people with dementia and their carers to accept care that is inappropriate."
      Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman talks about what carers have to fear from the Bill. Surely carers in this country have far more to fear from a 20 per cent. cut in public spending, proposed by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen just before Christmas? What would that do to social services budgets and what could carers expect as a result of such cuts?
      Mr. Waterson: The hon. Gentleman is behind the game. Despite the assurances of the Prime Minister, it has been made clear that no Opposition Member is suggesting a 20 per cent. across-the-board cut, or anything like it. I am talking about the Labour Government's loony proposal to charge fines—the Minister was careful not to use the word "fines" in Committee; she used various other, somewhat cuddlier, expressions—
      Sir George Young: Incentives.
      Mr. Waterson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend—I think that that was the word the Minister used. There would be charges to "incentivise" people, although I doubt that any criminal who is fined regards himself as being incentivised. In any event, the game was blown when the Secretary of State used the old term "fines" in the Chamber the other day. The Government are erecting a tremendous bureaucracy to fine social services departments—but may give back the fines because they are also setting up various appeal tribunals—to deal with a problem that in some places is visibly being tackled by the agencies themselves.
      The next brief we received is from Help the Aged, which makes similar points. It says that the Bill
      "fails to recognise the involvement of the patient in determining their future care."
      As I pointed out in Committee and on Second Reading, the Bill cuts right across the requirements of the NHS plan and the national service framework for older people. I do not know why Ministers publish all those worthy documents if they have no intention of paying any attention to them in legislation.
      Age Concern provides a powerful voice for the sort of people who will be most adversely affected by the Bill and whom the Opposition parties are trying to help by amending the Bill. The organisation does not pull any punches, stating:
      "We believe that there is a stark omission from the Bill of the rights of the patient."
      It refers to the finding of the Select Committee on Health inquiry into delayed discharges, that
      "it is essential that patients should as much as possible be partners in the discharge process."
      732
      There is no talk of partnership in the Bill—patients will not necessarily be told what is to happen to them, and neither they nor their carers will be asked about it. Age Concern talks about the need for the consent of the patient and their carer, for the provision of adequate and proper information, for consultation and advocacy, for the patient to have the right to dispute the discharge decision, and for details of what will happen to the patient when there is a dispute—a subject that we will discuss later.
      I return to what I have said throughout our consideration of the Bill. Consent of the patient, let alone the carer, is entirely absent from the Bill. We can only assume that it is a wholly Treasury-driven measure. It has nothing to do with the care of patients. It is designed to save money. As I have also said, in the area that I represent the problem is very much one that has been created by government.
      Alan Simpson: We should all welcome the recognition of the problems that are faced by carers, however late it has come. We must also recognise that legitimate points are being raised by organisations representing older people as well as by organisations representing the interests of carers.
      The specific concerns that I would like the Minister to address do not revolve around personnel issues in terms of a care package but relate to the circumstances in which people were admitted to hospital in the first instance and to the place to which they will be returned. Those points were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson). I would welcome a reference from my hon. Friend the Minister to the way in which these matters fit in with our approach to a fuel poverty strategy that will tackle the root cause of many elderly people's admission to hospital. No matter how much personal care we build into a return package, fuel poverty will be the cause of further readmissions.
      3.30 pm
      For a long time, many of us have been concerned about the revolving-door syndrome in terms of hospital admissions for older people. Much of the blocking of discharges relates not to the specific illness but to home conditions that may make it almost certain that the illness will recur. Will the Minister clarify whether she will be issuing fresh guidance about home circumstances. I think that the issue is covered in amendment No. 27, which refers to the need to identify "any services" that
      "need to be made available to the carer in order for it to be safe to discharge the patient".
      We have been the first Government ever to introduce statutory targets for the elimination of fuel poverty in the home. Home warmth, home conditions and home safety are central to the health interests of older people and to safety when discharging older people from hospital to return to their homes. The amendments that were tabled in my name and in the names of other Members on a cross-party basis have not been selected, but perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to set out her proposals in the context of recognising that it is not only the human care package but the physical care package that needs to be considered in removing or addressing the bed-blocking problem?

      733
      I would hate us to find that we had merely moved the problem from one location to another. I would not want us to replace the revolving-door problem with a pass-the-patient problem that surfaced in temporary locations to which a discharged patient was moved, not least because the people concerned may have been asking for a long time what help they can get from the Government or the responsible agency to make their life-long home a safe place in which to live.
      Mrs. Calton: My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) and I support the remarks of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson). We added our names to the amendments to which the hon. Gentleman referred, which sadly have not been selected. We would have liked them to be debated as well. We hope that the Minister will take notice of the hon. Gentleman's comments and take them up when she replies.
      We shall press amendment No. 37 to a Division, because it has the effect of ensuring that accommodation and personal care do not have to be free for more than six weeks. Effectively, that means that responsibility is thrown back to local authorities after six weeks. Liberal Democrats disagree with that approach. We believe that personal care should be free for as long as it is necessary. We have never pretended that it does not have to be paid for, but comments about charging that were made in Committee should be addressed.
      In May 2000, the Audit Commission's document "Charging with Care" said that 94 per cent. of councils were charging for care compared with 72 per cent. in 1992–93. The charges were raising £225 million and funding 12 per cent. of the costs of care, compared with 8 per cent. in 1993–94. It is acknowledged that that income helps councils to maintain and improve services and target subsidies. It is also acknowledged that demand is increasing. Much is made also of the differences in the amount of care that people could expect to get for the same money throughout the country.
      Councils have had the power to charge for social services care since the enactment of the National Assistance Act 1948. The current powers to charge were set out in the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983, which was introduced by a Conservative Government. It gave wide discretion to councils, but they had to be reasonable, and reasonably practicable, in what they brought in. In 1994, an advice note from the social services inspectorate provided further clarification, and a series of legal challenges established case law.
      The Government's current funding formula assumes that a proportion of costs can be recovered through charges. A note from the Library makes it clear that, for the first time, in 1999–2000—under a Labour Government—the way in which the revenue support grant was distributed to local authorities took into account the fact that they have different capacities to cover costs by raising charges for domiciliary services. In other words, councils were expected to make charges if they could do so.
      734
      Until 2000, only 6 per cent. of councils—
      Jacqui Smith: Is the hon. Lady suggesting that distribution should not take into consideration councils' ability to raise charges, given that, as she said, that has been the legal position since 1948? Is she suggesting that we should not bear that in mind when we are distributing—in other words, that we should disadvantage those local authorities whose communities are poorer and less able to pay charges?
      Mrs. Calton: I thank the Minister for her intervention, but I would have much more sympathy with her point of view if she acknowledged the level of unmet need throughout the country—in local authority areas considered affluent, and in those considered less affluent. The level of need is simply not being met because the indicators used are not sensitive enough to recognise it.
      Against the background of grants allocated on the basis that charges would be made, and of reductions in grant to that end, 94 per cent. of councils were clearly not in a position to avoid charging.
      Ms Munn: This time last year, my father needed care at home, and because of his level of disability at that time he was entitled to claim a higher rate of attendance allowance. Both my mother and father considered it only right that that allowance be used to contribute towards the services that they received, and it is clear that many people are in that position. Is the hon. Lady suggesting that that is not a legitimate way for the Government to proceed?
      Mrs. Calton: I am grateful for that intervention, but I need to make progress as we want to press several of the amendments tabled to a vote. Obviously, there will be those who feel able to pay, but I am talking about the most disadvantaged, who are not able to do so.
      Andy Burnham: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Mrs. Calton: No. As I said, I intend to make progress. I have taken several interventions.
      Successive Governments have been disingenuous on this front. It suited them to blame local councils, whereas in reality they were pulling the strings. We should remember that we are talking about services that involve assisting people in going to the toilet, using a bedpan, keeping the skin around catheters and stomas clean, changing incontinence pads, and keeping their skin clean because of their incontinence; assisting people with food; dealing with immobility; and medical treatments such the application of creams, lotions, eye drops and dressings. At the moment, people have to pay for all those things. Dressings, surgical appliances, prostheses, getting up and going to bed—all of those count within free personal care.
      The Liberal Democrats have never suggested that such care could be provided without funding, and it was covered in our last costed manifesto. Given that it is a priority for us, it will undoubtedly be costed for the next manifesto as well.
      In Scotland, all parties—Labour, the Conservatives, the Scottish National party and the Liberal Democrats—universally supported that move forward.

      735
      It is a great pity that the Government have not used this opportunity to ensure that free personal care is provided for those who need it in England and Wales. Indeed, they have made it impossible for themselves to do so without further primary legislation.
      Jacqui Smith: Opposition Members have made much of their concern for individuals and carers, but perhaps I should return to the very principle of the legislation, which they oppose. We introduced the Bill precisely because we recognise that the prime concern of many older people who are trapped in hospital—they tell us this when they come to our constituency surgeries—is that they want to get out, but that the facilities that they need to do so are not available. I am afraid that when it comes to concern about individuals and carers, talk is cheap for Opposition Members. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) pointed out, it has to be cheap for the Conservative party, given their plans to cut the public spending that we are pledging.
      As we shall see later, the Liberal Democrats seem to think that the problem can be solved with a few more plans. I am sorry, but every single older person who is trapped in hospital and wants to get out is an argument for a change to the system. Opposition Members can talk as much as they like about individuals, but if they are willing neither to invest nor to reform in order to make the necessary difference, that talk is hollow.
      Andy Burnham: When I intervened on the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), he responded that he was not aware that any Opposition Member was suggesting public spending cuts. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to a comment made by the Opposition's Treasury spokesman:
      "I am digging through current spending, finding opportunities for cuts. It is too early to say how much but it could be up to 20 per cent."
      That was what he told The Daily Telegraph on 28 December.
      Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. That is why I say that talk is cheap for Opposition Members.
      There has been much talk about carers and issues relating to consent. I should like to address some of those issues, and I hope to provide some reassurance. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) said that the Government's attitude to carers was different from that of previous Governments. We are committed to supporting carers in the vital care that they provide. Between 1999–2000 and 2001–02, the number of carers' assessments carried out increased. The carers grant introduced by the Government in 1999 provided an extra £140 million over three years to increase the number of breaks for carers. It has now been extended to provide £85 million this year and £100 million next year, and will continue to 2006. During that time, it will more than double to £185 million to provide extended care and 130,000 further breaks for carers.
      This is a Government who are willing to put resources behind concern about carers. However, I understand the concern that the Bill may not have taken into account some of the previous legislation that we introduced in
      736
      relation to carers' rights. We tabled Government amendments Nos. 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 39 and 40 to remedy an omission from the Bill that would have meant that carers and carers' services were not fully provided for. As the Bill is drafted, the financial incentive promptly to carry out an assessment and provide services will apply to individuals in hospital, but not to their carer.
      It was never our intention that the services that need to be provided to the carer to ensure safe discharge should be considered a lesser priority than the services to be provided to the individual. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate rightly pointed out, there may well be important cases where services provided to a carer are crucial in order to enable the safe discharge from hospital. Carers' needs are important in ensuring that an individual receives the services that he needs when he needs them and in the most appropriate place.
      3.45 pm
      The amendments add the carer's assessment—upon request from the carer—and decision about provision of services to the carer to the duties of a local authority when it receives a notice under section 2. Amendment No. 27 states that a carer's assessment should be carried out either when it has been requested by a carer—in response to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), I can say that we have issued section 7 guidance, alongside the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000, which outlines carers' entitlement to be informed about their right to assessment—or when a carer has had an assessment in the previous year, in order to check whether the carer's needs have changed or to identify those services specifically necessary for the safe discharge of the person cared for.
      The amendments therefore mean that if any carer's services necessary for a safe discharge are not in place by the end of the relevant day, the local authority will incur a charge in the same way as if community care services were not in place, and provide a strong incentive for local authorities to ensure that the needs of the carer are given priority when the patient discharge from hospital is being arranged.
      I am pleased to say that the amendments are strongly supported by Carers UK, which rightly raised the concerns that I have outlined. It believes that they will do much to improve current practice with respect to carers and hospital discharge. The amendments will ensure that carers' needs are taken into account, looking holistically at what they realistically can and cannot manage, and that services are put in place to meet those needs prior to the patient's discharge from hospital.
      The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam raised a point that I made in Committee: that, although services are provided free to individuals, under the Bill as drafted equivalent services provided to a carer would not also be free. Amendment No. 36 rectifies that error, which has the effect that, although local authorities will no longer be able to charge individuals for the provision of certain community care services, they will still be able to charge their carers. It was never our intention that local authorities should remain able to charge carers for the same services that could be provided free of charge to

      737
      the individuals themselves. The amendment will ensure that those services, whether provided to carers or to individuals, will be free in a similar way.
      Given those Government amendments, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) that new clause 3 is otiose. It seeks to overload the Bill with unnecessary definitions. The definitions in the first two subsections are taken into consideration by Government amendments. Subsections (3) and (4) place further duties on local authorities that are unnecessary and achieve nothing over and above what the Government have achieved through their amendments.
      The Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 already provides that carers are entitled to request assessment of their ability to provide care, and I can assure hon. Members that statutory guidance on the Act will state that carers are entitled to be informed that they have that right.
      Similarly, section 1 of the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 already provides that the local authority is under a duty to take into account the results of any assessment of the carer's ability to provide care when deciding what community care services it will provide to the person cared for. It is unnecessary to repeat that duty here. The single assessment process and the hospital discharge workbook will also reinforce that good practice.
      Mr. Burstow: On the publication of the workbook, it has been almost two years since the Government first said that they were working on revising it. Is it the case that the Department has not done the necessary work to enable the workbook to be published sooner because it has been distracted by drafting this Bill?
      Jacqui Smith: No, that is not the case. Secondly, legislation that ensures that older people get out of hospital more quickly and get the care that they need when they need it is not a distraction. I consider it a rather important part of Government business.
      The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam repeated quite a few of the discussions that we had in Committee. First, on the concern about levels of readmission, may I emphasise for hon. Members the points that I made earlier? While the Government have had considerable success in reducing levels of delayed discharge, levels of readmission have remained pretty stable. We also know, for example, that more than a third of local areas have below average rates of delayed discharge and below average rates of emergency readmission. That shows that it is possible to perform well on both indicators. As I have said before, however, we take that potential risk seriously, which is why we will be covering it in the hospital discharge workbook and the statutory guidance that we will publish alongside the Bill. Both will make it clear that discharge must be properly planned, patients must not be discharged until it is safe to do so, hospitals will be judged, and, therefore, rewarded on the basis of their ability to control readmission rates, and, under new financial flows, acute trusts will not receive funding for patients who are readmitted to hospital within a certain period.
      738
      A financial incentive therefore exists for those trusts to ensure that a patient is genuinely ready for discharge before leaving an acute hospital bed.
      The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam also raised concerns about whether patients in the community will be disadvantaged. Perhaps I could remind hon. Members of the context within which the Government propose to introduce this legislation: one of significant extra funding for older people's services. That will provide additional carer services, as I have spelled out, 500,000 more pieces of community equipment, 70,000 more social care intermediate care services, and 30,000 more home care services of five or more hours a week. If the hon. Gentleman's point is that, given the inheritance of the previous Government's spending on local authority social services, social services departments have had a difficult job, I agree. This Government, however, are significantly increasing investment in ensuring that social services departments can provide precisely the sort of community alternatives and support necessary for people to come safely out of hospital and to be where they tell us that they want to be—in their own home or in extra care supported accommodation. In that context, it is also right to ensure that the responsibilities of local authorities are carried out in a timely fashion and that older people are placed at the centre of care and not relegated to being trapped in hospital, a practice that Opposition Members would seem to want us to continue.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) made some important points about the need to ensure that action is taken on fuel poverty for older people in particular, and that people have the kind of changes made to their homes that enable them to continue living in them and to keep well. I assure him that, for example, my Department's "Keep Warm Keep Well" campaign, in partnership with Help the Aged, Age Concern, National Energy Action, the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Work and Pensions, which was launched again this year, provides an advice line, a free winter guide and advice about financial assistance available, such as that offered by the warm front team, which helps people to heat and insulate their homes.
      I also assure my hon. Friend that the Department of Health is, for the first time, investing more money in home improvement agencies precisely to make some of the changes to housing that will enable people to leave hospital more safely. We are also investing in intensive home care packages and extra care accommodation, which may well provide a safer and more secure environment for older people while allowing them to maintain their independence.
      Let us consider consent and involvement. It is important to involve and inform patients and carers and obtain consent when appropriate. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) rightly pointed out, the Bill does not alter existing legal or good practice requirements for social services or the NHS to inform, involve and, when necessary, obtain patients' or carers' consent.
      Amendment No. 41A proposes that local authorities should consult patients and carers before informing social services of a possible community care need and obtain their consent to that notification. When

      739
      exercising their functions, the NHS and social services must give people all proper information to enable them to decide whether to accept care or services. Those fundamental duties stern from their status as public bodies that exercise public functions. Of course, good practice dictates that the patient should be kept informed and consulted at all stages of the assessment process. The statutory guidance for the Bill will also make it plain that patients, carers and families should be kept fully informed and consulted at every stage of the discharge process.
      The revised hospital discharge workbook includes a chapter specifically on patient and carer involvement. We expect the NHS and social services staff to follow it. However, the Bill does not alter the existing right of the NHS to notify social services of a person's need of such services. I do not believe that giving people a veto over the ability of the NHS to notify social services will help us either to provide the sort of care that people need to leave hospital safely or to plan better the care that especially older people require. The Committee accepted that that early notification of social services would help everybody to plan such care better.
      Mr. Burstow: Will the Minister confirm whether the regulations under clause 2(4)(a) that deal with notification include carers? Will carers and patients be notified?
      Jacqui Smith: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we believe that the need to involve carers is crucial. That will be spelt out in the statutory guidance and the hospital discharge workbook. However, it may not be possible to give carers the same legal right as patients when patient confidentiality is involved.
      Glenda Jackson: Could a carer or a patient veto a plan that cannot be provided locally? If there is no carer and the patient is incapable of making a decision, will there be an advocate? There should be an advocate for an individual who cannot make decisions. Will the advocate be informed of the plan?
      Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend raises several issues. Circumstances in which people cannot get the care that they need locally are partly due to existing provision and investment. A key purpose of the measure is to ensure investment in providing local alternatives. Of course, carers' rights to ask for an assessment of their needs, and to have that taken into consideration when the care plan for the older person is prepared, remain in place. In fact, as I suggested, the position will be improved by some of the Government amendments.
      Of course, individuals' rights to raise concerns about the package put together by a social services department remain through the complaints system as well. Therefore, while I am not sure I can give my hon. Friend all the reassurance that she wants, I can reiterate that nothing in the Bill removes rights that currently exist, and in fact the Government amendments will improve the position of carers with respect to their role in discharge.
      4 pm
      Mr. John Bercow: Will the regulations covering the form and content of notices be subject to the affirmative procedure of the House or to its negative counterpart?
      Jacqui Smith: As I said in the letter that I wrote to members of the Committee, in all of those cases they will be subject to the negative procedure. We had quite a lengthy discussion about this matter in Committee.
      I move on to Opposition amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5.
      Amendment No. 2 is unnecessary. It would require the NHS to inform the patient and carer of the proposed discharge date. This of course should be covered in guidance and is not something that it is necessary to state in the Bill. Throughout guidance to the NHS, since Patient and Public Involvement in the NHS, published in 1999, and including the new hospital discharge workbook, we have made it clear that that sort of information should be provided to both patients and carers. Any guidance for the Bill will make it clear that the patient is to be provided with information and advice throughout the discharge process.
      Amendment No. 3 seeks to place on the NHS a duty to gain a patient's consent to services being provided following discharge. Just as with any treatment provided by the NHS, a patient has the right to withhold consent to services that the NHS plans to provide when the patient leaves hospital. The Bill does not alter the existing requirement for the NHS to gain this consent when discussing with the patient his or her future care.
      Amendment No. 4 seeks to place on the NHS a duty to involve carers. I have covered that in the points that I have made so far.
      The proposals in amendment No. 5 are already standard practice, most recently emphasised in statutory guidance on the single assessment process and fair access to care services. The amendment proposes that social services must inform patients of the cost of care plans—presumably, the cost to the individual. Social services must already, in exercising their functions, give all proper information to the person so that he or she can make an informed decision as to whether or not to accept services. That includes information about the costs of any care that they will receive. That has been part of statutory guidance to councils since at least the 1991 community care changes.
      I have outlined where existing legislation remains to safeguard the position with respect to the consent and the rights of both patients and carers, and I have outlined how the Government action being taken today will improve the position of carers. I hope that I have provided some reassurance to hon. Members. I have also outlined the position with respect to both the hospital discharge book and the statutory guidance to be published alongside the Bill, and the emphasis that that will place on ensuring that patients and carers are fully consulted.
      The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam raised specific points about continuing care that I think we covered in Committee. As to his question whether someone involved in a dispute over the right to continuing care would be able to remain in hospital,

      741
      I think I gave that assurance in Committee. I would add that of course, as we have made very clear, the first decision that should be made in the assessment process is whether patients are eligible and entitled to NHS continuing care, and clearly if they are there will be no responsibility on the social services department. If patients want to dispute that, they can appeal to the continuing care panel. We are currently producing directions to strategic health authorities to outline the need to ensure that they produce continuing care criteria and that any such decision is taken very quickly, within two weeks.
      Mr. Burstow: I want to ask the Minister two questions. First, can she confirm therefore whether there will be a charge, or fine, to the local authority during the appeal process on continuing care? Secondly, can she confirm whether the Department will follow the health service ombudsman's requirements for individual health authorities to carry out trawls to find those people who have been wrongfully denied access to free continuing care?
      Jacqui Smith: On the first question, the Bill makes it clear that a charge would apply only if there were no social services provision in place; therefore, if health service provision were also not in place, a fine would not exist.
      Mr. Burns: A fine.
      Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman has succeeded.
      Clearly, to reinforce a point that I made earlier, people also have the right to stay in hospital while decisions about the continuing care criteria are made.
      On the question about health service ombudsman cases, my understanding is that those final judgments have not yet been produced. Clearly, it would be important to take those judgments into consideration as strategic health authorities determine their continuing care criteria.
      Government amendment No. 37 will make it clear that personal care may not be provided free for more than six weeks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley made clear in her contribution, this is a matter of choice. As a Government, we have made a choice to spend significant new resources on improving the equality and range of care services provided to older people, providing services that deliver what most older people say that they want: independence, support in their own homes, services tailored to their needs and not to remain in hospital unnecessarily when they can be cared for elsewhere.
      When I suggested that this is about choice, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said from a sedentary position that the Liberal Democrats have made a different choice from that of the Government, so he has a responsibility to explain to his constituents that they would not therefore benefit from what we have decided to spend the extra £1 billion on: 130,000 additional carer services, 500,000 more pieces of community equipment, 70,000 more intermediate care places, 30,000 more
      742
      home care places, 6,000 more residential care places supported by councils and nearly 7,000 extra care housing places.
      I am afraid that government is about making choices. The Government have chosen to extend choice, opportunity and services. The Bill will ensure that that extra investment is spent for the benefit of older people, so that they receive the right care at the right time and in the right place.
      Mr. Burstow: Having listened very carefully to what the Minister has had to say in response to this group of amendments, I wish to say briefly that it is our clear view that the Government have not addressed our main concern: the onus should be on social services departments to ensure that assessments are given to carers; they should not have to ask for them. We do not accept the Government's argument, so we wish to press the motion to a Division and, later, to vote on Government amendment No. 37.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 334.

      Division No. 50]

      [4.09 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Allan, Richard

      Amess, David

      Dodds, Nigel

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Dorrell, rh Stephen

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Doughty, Sue

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Bacon, Richard

      Evans, Nigel

      Barker, Gregory

      Fabricant, Michael

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Fallon, Michael

      Barrett, John

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Bellingham, Henry

      Flight, Howard

      Bercow, John

      Flook, Adrian

      Blunt, Crispin

      Forth, rh Eric

      Boswell, Tim

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Brady, Graham

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Francois, Mark

      Brazier, Julian

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Garnier, Edward

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Burnet, John

      Gidley, Sandra

      Burns, Simon

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Burnside, David

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Burstow, Paul

      Grayling, Chris

      Burt, Alistair

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Grieve, Dominic

      Cameron, David

      Hague, rh William

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Hammond, Philip

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Hancock, Mike

      Cash, William

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Harvey, Nick

      Hawkins, Nick

      Chope, Christopher

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Heald, Oliver

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Heath, David

      Collins, Tim

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Hendry, Charles

      Cotter, Brian

      Hermon, Lady

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Curry, rh David

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Holmes, Paul

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Howard, rh Michael

      743

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Jack, rh Michael

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Keetch, Paul

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Ruffley, David

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Sanders, Adrian

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Selous, Andrew

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Lamb, Norman

      Shepherd, Richard

      Lansley, Andrew

      Simmonds, Mark

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Leigh, Edward

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Soames, Nicholas

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Lidington, David

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Spring, Richard

      Loughton, Tim

      Steen, Anthony

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Streeter, Gary

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Swayne, Desmond

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Maclean, rh David

      Syms, Robert

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Malins, Humfrey

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Maples, John

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Mates, Michael

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Thurso, John

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Mercer, Patrick

      Tredinnick, David

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Moore, Michael

      Walter, Robert

      Moss, Malcolm

      Waterson, Nigel

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Watkinson, Angela

      Norman, Archie

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Whittingdale, John

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Wiggin, Bill

      Öpik, Lembit

      Wilkinson, John

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Willetts, David

      Ottaway, Richard

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Page, Richard

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Paice, James

      Willis, Phil

      Paterson, Owen

      Wilshire, David

      Pickles, Eric

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Young, rh Sir George

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Redwood, rh John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Richard Younger-Ross and

      Rendel, David

      Mr. Andrew Stunell

      NOES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Allen, Graham

      Benn, Hilary

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Best, Harold

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Betts, Clive

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Blackman, Liz

      Austin, John

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Bailey, Adrian

      Blizzard, Bob

      Baird, Vera

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Banks, Tony

      Borrow, David

      Barnes, Harry

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Beard, Nigel

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Brennan, Kevin

      744

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Bryant, Chris

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Foulkes, rh George

      Burgon, Colin

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Burnham, Andy

      Gapes, Mike (Illford S)

      Cairns, David

      Gardiner, Barry

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Caplin, Ivor

      Gilroy, Linda

      Casale, Roger

      Godsiff, Roger

      Caton, Martin

      Goggins, Paul

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Challen, Colin

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clapham, Michael

      Grogan, John

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Hain, rh Peter

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Clelland, David

      Hanson, David

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Coaker, Vernon

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Healey, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Coleman, Iain

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Connarty, Michael

      Hendrick, Mark

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Cooper, Yvette

      Heppell, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hesford, Stephen

      Corston, Jean

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Cousins, Jim

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Cranston, hon. Ross

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Crausby, David

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Cruddas, Jon

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Cummings, John

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Hutton, rh John

      David, Wayne

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Davidson, Ian

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Denham, rh John

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Jamieson, David

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jenkins, Brian

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Doran, Frank

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Edwards, Huw

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Efford, Clive

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Kidney, David

      Etherington, Bill

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Farrelly, Paul

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Fisher, Mark

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Flint, Caroline

      Lammy, David

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Follett, Barbara

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Foster, rh Derek

      Lepper, David

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Leslie, Christopher

      745

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Purnell, James

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Linton, Martin

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Love, Andrew

      Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Rooney, Terry

      McCabe, Stephen

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Ruane, Chris

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Ruddock, Joan

      MacDonald, Calum

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      MacDougall, John

      McFall, John

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Salter, Martin

      McIsaac, Shona

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McKechin, Ann

      Sawford, Phil

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McNamara, Kevin

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McNulty, Tony

      Sheerman, Barry

      MacShane, Denis

      Sheridan, Jim

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McWalter, Tony

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Singh, Marsha

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mallaber, Judy

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Martlew, Eric

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Soley, Clive

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Southworth, Helen

      Merron, Gillian

      Spellar, rh John

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Squire, Rachel

      Miller, Andrew

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stevenson, George

      Mole, Chris

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Moran, Margaret

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Morgan, Julie

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Morley, Elliot

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Mountford, Kali

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Mudie, George

      Straw, rh Jack

      Mullin, Chris

      Stringer, Graham

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Organ, Diana

      Timms, Stephen

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Owen, Albert

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Picking, Anne

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Trickett, Jon

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Truswell, Paul

      Plaskitt, James

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Prescott, rh John

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Purchase, Ken

      Walley, Ms Joan

      746

      Ward, Claire

      Woolas, Phil

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Worthington, Tony

      Watts, David

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      White, Brian

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Winnick, David

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Mr. Nick Ainger and

      Woodward, Shaun

      Mr. Fraser Kemp

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 5

      ACTION PLANS AND JOINT LOCAL PROTOCOLS
      '.—(1) The responsible NHS body and responsible authority are required to agree the following as regards the discharge of qualifying hospital patients as defined in section 1 of this Act—

      (a) action plans to prevent and reduce delayed discharges;

      (b) joint local protocols on the administrative and practical arrangements for the implementation of the legislation to ensure that all parties are clear about their respective roles and responsibilities;

      (c) local targets for reducing delayed discharges;

      (d) joint administrative arrangements for the local implementation of the duties in sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 in this Act.

      (2) An action plan under subsection (1) above is a document drawn up by the relevant bodies specifying action intended to reduce delayed discharges, and to change procedures and arrangements which may cause or contribute to the failure to comply with duties under section 3.
      (3) Joint local protocols will include named persons responsible for coordinating all stages of the patient journey up to and beyond discharge, and ensuring that all necessary arrangements are put in place at the right time.
      (4) Local protocols may include joint agreement on how payments made under section 4 are used to encourage a whole system approach to services for older people, and to ensure that all stakeholders are involved in deciding how the payments are spent.'.—[Mrs. Calton.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mrs. Calton: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 6— Written discharge plan—
      '.—(1) Further to the fulfilment of the requirements under section 3(3)(a) and (b) a written discharge plan shall be produced and taken to include—

      (a) an assessment of community needs within the meaning of section 47 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, and arrangements for aftercare; and

      (b) where the patient has an intending carer, within the meaning of section 1(1)(b) of the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995, an assessment in compliance with section 1 of that Act.

      (2) Regulations may prescribe the form of a written discharge plan.'.
      Government amendment No. 26.
      Amendment No. 42, in page 2, line 19, at end insert—
      '(1a) The form of a written discharge plan.'.
      Government amendment No. 31.

      747
      Amendment No. 43, in page 3, line 11, at end insert—'
      (2a) The form of a written discharge plan.'.
      Mrs. Calton: New clause 5 is intended to enhance joint working. The thrust of the Bill has been to disturb absolutely everyone who has anything to do with this area of work. All the organisations have expressed the view that the Minister's planning measures will worsen joint working arrangements. We want joint action plans, joint protocols between social services and other agencies, joint targets and joint administration arrangements. The new clause would ensure that there would be a named person to co-ordinate the patient journey, and that joint planning would take place on how fines or payments were used to encourage a whole-system approach.
      Subsection (2) of the new clause states:
      "An action plan under subsection (1) above is a document drawn up by the relevant bodies specifying action intended to reduce delayed discharges".
      Let me ask the Minister a question to which I have still not had a reply so far, although it was asked in Committee. Has the Secretary of State or the Minister assessed the success of plans that had to be submitted by social services departments last August to reduce delayed discharges? A special grant report was produced in July 2002, and we heard then that money was being made available. We still do not know whether the plans made then have benefited the situation. We believe that the Bill is premature, given that measures introduced only in this financial year remain to be properly assessed.
      New clause 6 would require the preparation of a written discharge plan that would include an assessment of community needs, arrangements for after care, and carers. I listened to what the Minister said earlier, and have been somewhat reassured, so I shall not rehearse all the points raised by carers organisations and Age Concern. However, those organisations have been in touch with all hon. Members and have made it clear that they are unhappy with what is being proposed.
      Government amendment No. 26 deals with the bodies that appear to the NHS to be the ones to which notice is supposed to be given. We are concerned that all decisions will rest, arbitrarily, with the NHS. Because the amendment allows for no give and take, the process will be all one way.
      Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 are consequential on new clauses 5 and 6. Government amendment No. 31 would require consultation to ensure safe discharge, but does not say when the consultation should take place. Would it be before the section 2 notice is served, or after?
      I look forward to the Minister's responses to the questions that I have raised.
      Mr. Burns: One of the main problems that Opposition Members have with the Bill is that we believe that the imposition of fines would have a damaging impact. I am glad that the Minister has come to accept that the word "fines" properly defines what the Government propose. The Secretary of State used the word "fines" in the House on 11 December so perhaps, after that slap on the wrist, the Minister decided that she would have to swallow her pride and accept that fines are what the Bill is all about.
      748
      The Opposition have always argued that the introduction of fines would disrupt and have an adverse impact on the discharge process, and that it would seriously damage the partnerships built up over the past decade or 15 years, when the NHS and social service departments have worked more closely together. That closer working has been a genuine and positive step forward, and has helped to create a seamless service that will be undermined and adversely affected by the fining proposals in the Bill.
      I appreciate the motives behind new clauses 5 and 6. They are meant to protect and encourage joint working, but they are far too bureaucratic and costly to warrant inclusion on the face of the Bill. For that reason, I believe that more work needs to be done. I support the broad aims and aspirations of the new clauses, but the clauses themselves are the wrong vehicles, for the reasons that I have given. So I warn the Government that we will certainly want to look at the issue in another place and try to come up with proposals that will advance and enhance joint working, but not in such a bureaucratic and costly way. For that reason, I fear that I shall not be able to support the new clauses.
      4.30 pm
      Jacqui Smith: That was a pretty short-lived consensus between the Opposition parties.
      I agree with the analysis by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford of new clause 5 in particular. It is designed to impose another layer of bureaucracy on the NHS and social services; it is a planner's charter. The sum total of the Liberal Democrat approach to the matter is to come up with the idea that producing a few more plans would somehow help us to ensure that older people received the care that they deserve. I do not believe that that will do the trick, and it is of course just what staff on the front line do not want.
      We in the Department have worked hard to reduce and streamline the planning requirements on the NHS and social services. We have been removing the requirement for social services to submit plans to central Government as part of grant conditions or other monitoring, so that the number of plans submitted will reduce from 13 to two between 2001–02 and 2002–03. A new gateway procedure was introduced in December to reduce the planning burden on the NHS and ensure that the focus is on core priorities.
      The hon. Member for Cheadle asked what assessment we have made of the plans. My definition of success is the difference that we have made to the people who depend on the service. For that reason, the fact that we have been successful in reducing the number of delayed discharges of patients of all ages from 7,065 in September 2001 to 5,385 in September 2002 is much more important than whether somebody has produced an elegant plan.
      Mrs. Calton: I am somewhat surprised to hear that the Minister does not think that plans are such a good idea, given that they were precisely what social services departments were asked to produce last July. I agree

      749
      that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I suspect that September 2002 was too soon to make a judgment, but I shall leave that to her.
      Jacqui Smith: The hon. Lady has reinforced her position as planning supremo for the Liberal Democrat party.
      Suggesting that we can solve the problem with planning is very much at odds with the approach that we are trying to take. In "Delivering the NHS Plan", for example, we pointed out that, although ring-fenced grants—the £300 million—and close central monitoring had brought about a significant drop in the number of delays, such top-down targeting was not sustainable. It does not fit with the new approach in the NHS and local government of devolving responsibility and earning autonomy through good performance.
      The publication in October of the priorities and planning framework for the NHS and social services set clear priorities for the next three years so that local partnerships can plan with confidence.
      Mr. Burstow: Has the Minister withdrawn the guidance, "Reflecting the True Patient Experience", issued by the Department in 2001, which did require NHS chief executives and directors of social services to draw up joint protocols around discharge, to minimise waiting times and so on? Given that that requirement was part of the guidance then, what was wrong with that? Why have the Government withdrawn it? Have they withdrawn it?
      Jacqui Smith: I do not think that I am wrong when I say that we have not withdrawn that. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that at a local level it is a good idea for partners to work together and develop protocols, I have no argument with that. I do have an argument with the Liberal Democrat approach, which appears to consist of opposing what the Government propose in the Bill and supposing that we shall solve the problem merely by asking for a few more plans and protocols. I identify that as a weakness of new clause 5.
      The hon. Members for West Chelmsford and for Cheadle both mentioned partnership between health and social care. I agree that partnership is an essential element in delivering the right care for an individual. At the moment, delays can occur because health and social care partners have not communicated very well or because they are unclear or are arguing about responsibility, or even because one is trying to shift costs to the other. The Bill gives areas where partnership is not very well developed the incentive to get all these things right, and to ensure that locally the partnership is totally clear about procedures—who is responsible for which actions.
      Much has been said about the Bill damaging partnership, as though partnership was an aim in itself. In fact, the Bill will strengthen partnerships, and strengthen them in order to deliver results. Strong partnerships are based on shared priorities, clearly agreed roles and responsibilities, and a joint commitment to progress, all of which the Bill will strengthen. However, we do notwant partnerships for partnership's sake; we do not
      750
      want partnerships simply to be able to produce a plan. The real test of the partnership is: what is it delivering? Have local people noticed the difference in the services that they receive? The proof of partnership is in delivery, not in planning.
      For that reason we have made older people's services a core priority, not by increasing the planning burden but by making this area one of the priority areas for investment and reform. Over the next three years there will be £1 billion of new resources for older people's social care services and for the reform to the system that the Bill will enable us to bring about with respect to delayed discharge.
      I address the following point to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow). If people locally want to make further detailed local arrangements, that is up to them, but we are introducing the reimbursement system and the new resources because a system of incentives backed up with resources should be more effective than a further raft of plans and protocols. We need to take a proactive approach; the Bill enables us to do so. New clause 5 should be opposed, because it does not fit the need to make a difference or the new approach to devolving responsibility and developing earned autonomy.
      New clause 6 would place a further requirement on social services to produce a written discharge plan that must take into account two assessments, once the NHS has notified them of likely patient need for community care services. I suspect unintentionally, the new clause is so drafted that failure by social services to meet those new duties would also act as a trigger to the reimbursement charge if a patient was delayed. I do not believe that we want to create that additional trigger for the charge.
      The biggest problem with the amendment is that it is unnecessary. In the first instance, written records of the results of assessments are already standard practice as part of carrying out an assessment under section 47 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. Clause 3(9) of the Bill already provides that assessments undertaken by social services in receipt of a section 2 notice must be regarded as part of a section 47 assessment, and the section 47 duties still apply. So we expect people to get a written plan outlining what needs to be in place for them to have a safe discharge.
      The requirement to include a carer's assessment in the written discharge plan is also not necessary. It is already the case that carers are entitled to request assessment of their ability to provide care, and existing good practice already directs that carers will be fully consulted in the patient's assessment process.
      I was a little disappointed by the reason given by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam for pushing new clause 3 to the vote. I think that I said specifically that statutory guidance issued around the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 had pointed out to local authorities their responsibility to inform individual carers of their right to request an assessment. Local authorities are already required to take account of the results of such an assessment of the carer when deciding what community care services they will provide to the patient.

      751
      The provisions of new clause 6 are already covered by current arrangements and new clause 5 would do nothing more than introduce planning requirements with little emphasis on what those would achieve, so I hope that the hon. Member for Cheadle will feel able to withdraw the new clause. If not, I hope that hon. Members will vote against it.
      Mrs. Calton: I thank the Minister for tackling some of the issues that I mentioned. Perhaps this was just an omission, but I am concerned that she did not mention our proposal that a named person should co-ordinate the patient journey. The Government have said that they would be in favour of that in other respects and it would be useful if it were a part of the Bill.
      I am also concerned that the opportunity to provide for joint planning on how to use payments or fines to encourage a whole-system approach has also been missed. I accept what the Minister says about the preparation of a written discharge plan and I am pleased if that is already expected. Clearly, we think that it is important.
      On the assessment for carers, I agree that carers can already request a separate assessment, but all too often that does not happen and the Minister should have some regard to the question of ensuring that it does. It is clear from reading all the evidence from carers that they are not being consulted and assessed every step of the way as they should be.
      The Minister said that the Bill would strengthen partnership. In one respect, I think I can agree that it may do so in the sense that it provides a common enemy. Sometimes, a common enemy in the form of the Government may well be what is needed to bring organisations together when they are warring with each other.
      Mr. Kevin Hughes: Will the hon. Lady give way on that matter?
      Mrs. Calton: I have almost finished. That remark was made with tongue in cheek; I hardly think it needs to be taken too seriously.
      We would have liked to press the new clause to a vote, but, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we will withdraw it, as we understand that time is limited this afternoon and we expect our arguments to be revisited in the other place.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
      Government amendments Nos. 26 to 34 agreed to

    Clause 4

      LIABILITY TO MAKE DELAYED DISCHARGE PAYMENTS
      Mr. Burns: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 4, line 30, at end insert—
      '(10) The amount prescribed under subsection (4) shall not exceed—

      (a) £120, in the case of a social services authority in, or adjacent to, Greater London, or

      (b) £100, in any other area.'.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 8, in page 4, line 30 [Clause 4], at end insert—
      '(10) The amount prescribed under subsection (4) shall not exceed—

      (a) £12, in the case of a social services authority in, or adjacent to, Greater London, or

      (b) £10, in any other area.'.

      4.45 pm
      Mr. Burns: I want to make it clear at the outset that although I will speak to both amendments in the group, I will press only amendment No. 8 to a Division. Before the Minister has fun at my expense, let me make it clear that the reason why both were tabled is, first, that I do not have the advantage of having the Government's lawyers and draftsmen at my disposal and, secondly, that those in opposition never know in advance which amendments will be selected. To be frank, I thought that even though amendment No. 8 is far more important and relevant to local authorities throughout the country, it would be pushing my luck to presume that it would be selected. You cannot imagine my unbridled joy, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I noticed yesterday evening that it had been selected.
      The nub of the Conservatives' opposition to this nasty and unnecessary Bill is the concept that the Government are introducing fines on local authorities—fines that are across the board in their application, regardless of whether there is any justification for them. As we said in Committee, circumstances will quite frequently arise in which for various reasons it will not be a local authority's fault that a person does not leave a hospital bed and go to either domiciliary or residential care, whichever is the most appropriate, yet the Government are to impose fines of, we understand, £120 per day for those living in London and the south-east, and £100 for those living elsewhere.
      We believe that that is wholly the wrong way to try to overcome the problem of bed blocking. Like many outside the House, we believe that the Bill will set the national health service against social services and vice versa, and undo the great strides forward accomplished in the past decade or so in terms of those agencies working together to provide a seamless service for patients. Regardless of the announcement made by the Secretary of State on 11 December of extra money for three years, we believe that the legislation will result in local authorities being penalised financially. Anyone who asks social services departments in England for their estimate of the potential cost to them of the fines will be given a figure that far exceeds the £100 million that the Government are making available.
      The departments' estimate also far exceeds the results of the calculations done on the back of an envelope by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), who is no longer in his place. All of us who know the Liberal Democrats know that they never let a fact get in the way of a "Focus" or a press release, especially if that press release can be got into a national newspaper by conning some journalist who does not want to do the research himself—after all, the Liberal Democrats,

      753
      with their clipboards and their anoraks, are the font of all accuracy in surveys and calculations of a mathematical nature.
      Claire Ward: There is a man who has been scarred.
      Mr. Burns: Too right, I have been scarred. I have had to deal with that party for 10 years. Fortunately, the people of West Chelmsford saw through the Liberal Democrats long ago. From getting within 378 votes of capturing Chelmsford in 1983—I might add that that was before I was the candidate—they are now a very poor third behind Labour. The clipboard experience has disappeared from our streets.
      Mrs. Calton: I can only think that a figure like 25 per cent. is making a difference. Would the hon. Gentleman like the Liberal Democrats' support for the amendment? I think that it would be useful and perhaps entertaining for us to know.
      Mr. Burns: I shall answer the hon. Lady in two ways. First, on the mathematics, the hon. Lady has proved my point, although I may be arguing unwisely in a way, given that Liberal Democrats can never get any mathematical calculation right. The hon. Lady said 25 per cent. The Government say 20 per cent. I think that the hon. Lady meant 20 per cent. rather than 25 per cent.
      Secondly, the hon. Lady asks whether the Conservatives want the hon. Lady's support on the amendment. The Conservative party, for reasons that I am outlining, has produced a first-rate amendment to minimise the damage that the Government can do to social service departments with their fines. I would advise not only Liberal Democrat Members but Members of any Opposition party—and any Labour Member who has listened carefully to their social services department, although given those Members who are in their places, I suspect that they have not—to join us in seeking to help social service departments and other organisations throughout the country so as to ensure that we minimise the damage that the Bill would do to social service departments.
      Mr. Kevin Hughes: The hon. Gentleman may recall that on Second Reading I produced the figures for Doncaster, which has been working really well on this issue and has an extremely good record. These matters start at the front end, not the back end. Instead of trawling round social service departments looking for negatives, the hon. Gentleman might be better trawling round looking for positives, and asking what will be done to ensure that our constituents receive the treatment that they deserve in hospitals and get out when they no longer need medical treatment.
      Mr. Burns: If the hon. Gentleman were correct in his assumption, his point would be valid, but I can assure him that I did not trawl social services departments for bad news stories. Instead, and at random, I telephoned social services department after social services department. Amazingly—or not amazingly, given the
      754
      damage that the Bill will do—they all had the same complaint, which was that there would be a problem with fines to some degree.
      As for the hon. Gentleman's second point, he is absolutely right. We all want a system whereby people do not have to remain in hospital for a day longer than they otherwise should. Unfortunately and regrettably, owing to a number of circumstances including the crisis in long-term care the closure of more than 60,000 beds and of 2,000 homes since 1997 and the fact that in certain areas there are not enough beds available—there are bound to be some delayed discharge cases.
      None of us wants that. Of course social services departments and the national health service have been seeking to minimise delayed discharges for a considerable time. However, factors beyond their control have thwarted them in achieving anywhere near a 100 per cent. success rate in eliminating the problem. I am saying, as my party is saying—
      Mr. Kevin Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Burns: No.
      We want to come up with positive and sensible ideas to seek to overcome the problem. We do not believe that the best way to achieve that is through fines. That is why to my mind amendment No. 8 is the most attractive alternative within the scope of the Bill. We believe that it will deal with the problem. Bringing down to a more or less nominal level the fines that the Minister is seeking to introduce and including that figure in the Bill would prevent the Chancellor from using the proposals as a new form of stealth tax. Without primary legislation, he could not seek to increase the level annually, or whenever the Government wanted to raise more money.
      Mr. Kevin Hughes rose—
      Andy Burnham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Burns: I am sorry, but I cannot.
      It is for those reasons that I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will join me in the Division Lobby. I further hope that any other hon. Members who care about coming up with positive solutions to the long-term care crisis, and who have said consistently on the Floor of the House and in Committee that they oppose the fining system, will join us in seeking to thwart the Government's intentions.
      Mrs. Calton: I shall be very brief. The Liberal Democrats will support the amendment, but in spite of, rather than because of, the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). I should correct him on one point—I realise that I did not make myself clear: the figure of 25 per cent. referred to the opinion polls, rather than to whatever it was that he thought it referred to.
      Jacqui Smith: I was glad to see some of the Opposition harmony return at the end of the debate. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) was a little unfair. After talking about Liberal Democrat clipboards and anoraks—amusing though that was—he proceeded to talk about his own survey. I do not know

      755
      whether he used a clipboard; it is more likely that he got someone else to carry out the survey, and perhaps they used a clipboard.
      Mr. Burns: Perhaps I can help the Minister. No, I did not use a clipboard, because I try to distance myself from the Liberal Democrats as much as possible. Directors of social services were telephoned in their offices, and they provided the information. I put it on a piece of paper and added it up, and I got a total. [Interruption.]
      Jacqui Smith: As has just been pointed out, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would never be seen wearing an anorak, either.
      The Bill seeks to provide an incentive for local authorities to supply prompt onward care for patients who are ready to leave hospital by introducing a charge that broadly reflects the cost to the hospital of providing a bed for a delayed patient. We had some lengthy discussions in Committee about the justifiable basis for expecting that, where the responsibility rests with social services departments to provide for a person's needs—usually, it is an older person—it is not unreasonable to expect them to take responsibility for payment as well, given that they will receive the necessary funding from the Government. The alternative is a system that is effectively a fine on the NHS, because the NHS is expected to pay the costs of people whose needs would be better served out of hospital, but who remain in hospital because alternatives are not available in the community. Anybody who opposes that principle must answer the question of whether it is justifiable for the NHS to bear costs for which it has neither legal nor practical responsibility. Nor, indeed, is it best suited to provide that particular form of care.
      Sir George Young: Let us accept for one moment the principle that the Minister has just enunciated. Why does it not work the other way around? When the NHS imposes costs on social services, why does it not pay them?
      5 pm
      Jacqui Smith: I would be interested to know what examples the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. We explored in detail in Committee the principles of some of the financial incentives that are being introduced into the NHS. I made the point that it is possible to introduce financial incentives through the sort of financial flows work that we will be introducing into the NHS, some of which I spelt out earlier, without legislation. However, the interface between social services and health is such that we need to legislate in order to introduce financial incentives in that context.
      I return to my original question, which has not been satisfactorily answered by anybody who opposes the legislation. The incentive is that the daily charge that we propose is higher than the daily costs that the local authority would otherwise incur in providing either residential or domiciliary care for the person in question. I hope that hon. Members will understand that there are very good reasons why the Bill makes no mention of the actual reimbursement charge.
      We have chosen to set out the charge in regulations rather than in the Bill, as that will give us greater flexibility to amend the rates in line with inflation or
      756
      other cost pressures. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford was either on a flight of fancy or lacks understanding about the nature of the charge, which is a transfer from one part of the public system to another reflecting the costs that have been borne. It is not raising money for the Government, but focusing the attention of social services departments on areas in which they already have responsibility and ensuring that they spend the extra investment that the Government are making available to them on the sort of alternatives that older people want to enable them to get out of hospital more quickly.
      In the letter that I sent to members of the Standing Committee about the regulations, I spelt out that the charge will be based on the cost to the NHS of providing bed, board and personal care in an acute environment, but having removed indirect overheads and the cost of capital medical input and specialist nursing in order to reflect the lower costs of caring for a patient at the end of a hospital stay when medical needs have been reduced. In most cases, the figure will also represent a higher charge to the local authority than the daily costs of providing community care in a residential setting or in the person's home. Our intention is to remove what sometimes operates as perverse incentive in the system, enabling local authorities not to live up to their responsibilities, with the NHS bearing the costs of people's care because the necessary alternatives are not in place.
      In our consultation, we asked whether a charge of 100 a day and £.120 in London and the south-east would be appropriate. Responses suggested that that seemed about the right amount to create the incentive that we want. We will issue the regulations for consultation and consider any further responses about the amount of the charge and the boundary for the higher rate.
      The hon. Member for West Chelmsford made clear what the amendments are about. They are not a serious attempt to consider the incentive effect or the appropriate level for the charges that will justifiably be put in place. They are simply wrecking amendments that continue for the Opposition the approach on which I commented during the debate on the previous group of amendments but one. Opposition Members are keen to oppose our proposals, but have no ideas about how we can cut delayed discharge. I am afraid that they are therefore letting down the older people who depend on all of us to provide a better system to ensure that they get the right care in the right place.
      Mr. Burns: I listened carefully to the Minister, and it will come as no surprise to the House that I was not convinced by her arguments. Moreover, her comments towards the end of her speech were absolute and unadulterated rubbish. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby in support of amendment No. 8.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

      757
      Amendment proposed: No. 8, in page 4, line 30, at end insert—
      '(10) The amount prescribed under subsection (4) shall not exceed—

      (a) £12, in the case of a social services authority in, or adjacent to, Greater London, or

      (b) £10, in any other area.'.—[Mr. Burns.]

      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 188, Noes 317.

      Division No. 51]

      [5:05 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Allan, Richard

      Garnier, Edward

      Amess, David

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Bacon, Richard

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Baker, Norman

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Barker, Gregory

      Grayling, Chris

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Barrett, John

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Gummer, rh John

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hammond, Philip

      Bercow, John

      Hancock, Mike

      Blunt, Crispin

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Boswell, Tim

      Brady, Graham

      Harvey, Nick

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Brazier, Julian

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Heald, Oliver

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Heath, David

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Burns, Simon

      Hendry, Charles

      Burnside, David

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Burstow, Paul

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Burt, Alistair

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Howard, rh Michael

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Cameron, David

      Hunter, Andrew

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Jack, rh Michael

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Cash, William

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Keetch, Paul

      Chope, Christopher

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Collins, Tim

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Cotter, Brian

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Lamb, Norman

      Curry, rh David

      Lansley, Andrew

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Leigh, Edward

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Dodds, Nigel

      Lidington, David

      Dorrell, rh Stephen

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Doughty, Sue

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Evans, Nigel

      Loughton, Tim

      Fabricant, Michael

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Fallon, Michael

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Maclean, rh David

      Flight, Howard

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Flook, Adrian

      Malins, Humfrey

      Forth, rh Eric

      Maples, John

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Mates, Michael

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      758

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Mercer, Patrick

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Moore, Michael

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Spring, Richard

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Steen, Anthony

      Norman, Archie

      Streeter, Gary

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Stunell, Andrew

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Öpik, Lembit

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Syms, Robert

      Ottaway, Richard

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Page, Richard

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Paice, James

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Paterson, Owen

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Pickles, Eric

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Thurso, John

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Tredinnick, David

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Redwood, rh John

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Rendel, David

      Viggers, Peter

      Robathan, Andrew

      Walter, Robert

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Watkinson, Angela

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Whittingdale, John

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Wiggin, Bill

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Wilkinson, John

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Willetts, David

      Ruffley, David

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Selous, Andrew

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Young, rh Sir George

      Shepherd, Richard

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Simmonds, Mark

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Mr. David Wilshire and

      Soames, Nicholas

      Mr. Mark Francois

      NOES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Burgon, Colin

      Allen, Graham

      Burnham, Andy

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Cairns, David

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Casale, Roger

      Austin, John

      Caton, Martin

      Bailey, Adrian

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Baird, Vera

      Challen, Colin

      Banks, Tony

      Clapham, Michael

      Barnes, Harry

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Beard, Nigel

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Clelland, David

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Bell, Stuart

      Coaker, Vernon

      Benn, Hilary

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Bennett, Andrew

      Cohen, Harry

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Coleman, Iain

      Best, Harold

      Connarty, Michael

      Blackman, Liz

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cooper, Yvette

      Blizzard, Bob

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Borrow, David

      Corston, Jean

      Bradley, rh Keith (W'rthington)

      Cousins, Jim

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Cranston, hon. Ross

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Crausby, David

      Bryant, Chris

      Cruddas, Jon

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      759

      Cummings, John

      Hutton, rh John

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      David, Wayne

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jamieson, David

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Dhanda, Paimjit

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Jones, Martyn (ClwydS)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Doran, Frank

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Kemp, Fraser

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Kidney, David

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Edwards, Huw

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Efford, Clive

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Etherington, Bill

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Farrelly, Paul

      Lammy, David

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Fisher, Mark

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Lepper, David

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Leslie, Christopher

      Flint, Caroline

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Follett, Barbara

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Linton, Martin

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Love, Andrew

      Foulkes, rh George

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Gapes, Mike (IlfordS)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Gardiner, Barry

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gerrard, Neil

      McCabe, Stephen

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      McCafferty, Chris

      Gilroy, Linda

      McCartney, rh Ian

      Godsiff, Roger

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Goggins, Paul

      MacDonald, Calum

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      MacDougall, John

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McFall, John

      Grogan, John

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McKechin, Ann

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Hanson, David

      McNamara, Kevin

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      McNulty, Tony

      Healey, John

      MacShane, Denis

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      McWalter, Tony

      Hendrick, Mark

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Heppell, John

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hesford, Stephen

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Martlew, Eric

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Merron, Gillian

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Miliband, David

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Miller, Andrew

      760

      Moffatt, Laura

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mole, Chris

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Moran, Margaret

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Morgan, Julie

      Morley, Elliot

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mountford, Kali

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mudie, George

      Soley, Clive

      Mullin, Chris

      Southworth, Helen

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Squire, Rachel

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Stevenson, George

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Organ, Diana

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Owen, Albert

      Stringer, Graham

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Picking, Anne

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Plaskitt, James

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham F)

      Timms, Stephen

      Tipping, Paddy

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Trickett, Jon

      Prosser Gwyn

      Truswell, Paul

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Purchase, Ken

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Purnell, James

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Vaz Keith (Leicester E)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Ward, Claire

      Rooney, Terry

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Watts, David

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      White, Brian

      Ruane, Chris

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Salter, Martin

      Woodward, Shaun

      Sawford, Phil

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Wyatt, Derek

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Singh, Marsha

      Mr. Nick Ainger and

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mr. Phil Woolas

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 6

      DISPUTE RESOLUTION
      Mr. Burns: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 4, line 42, leave out clause 6.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 35.
      Mr. Burns: Because of pressure of time, I shall not detain the House for long.

      761
      Clause 6 deals with the appeals procedure. I think that seeking to delete it is the right way forward, but not because I believe that there should not be an appeals procedure. I believe that there should, because, given what the Government are doing with fines, there is an urgent need for it; I fear that, as a result of the breakdown of partnerships and working together, the arguing between the health service and social services over whether a fine will be paid will be so intense that an appeals procedure needs to be in place.
      What I do not find attractive about the Government's proposal, as many of my right hon. and hon. Friends said in Committee, is that unfortunately the way in which they are going about it is to set up the procedure though the strategic health authorities, so that in effect the health service will be both judge and jury. That cannot be right, in the interests of fairness and justice.
      What we have always argued, and what I remain committed to, is that there should be an appeals procedure, but that it should also include social service departments or local authorities on an equal footing with the health service, with an independent chairman—or chair, in the current politically correct language. The Bill would be greatly enhanced by that. Unfortunately, because of the lengthy discussions in Committee, it would not have been in order to re-table the amendment that we proposed in Committee, and regrettably this is the only way in which one can seek to persuade the Government to think again and adopt a more even-handed approach.
      I am sure that the Minister will say that it would be nonsense to take the whole appeals procedure out of the Bill, and I would agree. But I should like to persuade her and the House that removing the clause from the Bill now would give the Government time to reflect further on our eminently sensible suggestions of an even-handed approach to an appeals procedure, so that they could reinstate in another place a clause that was more acceptable to my right hon. and hon. Friends and, I suspect, many social service departments, which see this as potentially a fix where justice will not be seen to be done.
      For those reasons, I hope that the Government will accept the amendment, solely as a temporary measure while they reflect on introducing their own amendment. If they do not, my noble Friends in another place will be in a position to do so instead.
      Mr. Burstow: We rehearsed a lot of these concerns and arguments in Committee before Christmas. The Liberal Democrats fundamentally share the Conservative position: the arrangements for setting up the dispute panels under strategic health authorities do not guarantee the independence of those panels. Indeed, I noticed that, in Committee, the Minister acknowledged the need to reconsider the independence issue. Simply keeping on saying that the chairmen should be independent does not make them independent. She said that she would consider how to secure such independence and
      "how we guarantee that in the regulations which, like all regulations, will be subject to consultation."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 12 December 2002; c. 88.]
      762
      I want to dwell on that issue.
      The notes that the Minister has circulated, which give a glimpse of what might be covered in the regulations under clause 6, raise a couple of issues, and I hope that she might be able to give us some further information on them. The first point relates to clause 6(2)(a) on the constitution of the panels. Paragraph 24 of the notes says:
      "The regulations can provide that local authority and PCT are represented in equal numbers and that representatives of any organisation involved in the dispute (s) to be discussed at any meeting of the panel are excluded from the panel."
      Why has the Department used the word "can" in drafting that document? I hope that the Minister can assure us that the regulations will provide for equal numbers of members from local authorities and primary care trusts. It is important to get that confirmation from the Minister today, as that document gives us the opportunity to test further whether that is the intention behind the policy.
      The second issue relates to paragraph 22 of the notes, which says:
      "The local authority which received a section 2 notice from the NHS will still need to put in place arrangements for an individual's on-going care within the time frame set out in the legislation, even if a dispute is in progress, or face a payment."
      It is not unreasonable to say that someone who needs a package of care should have one arranged. However, if there is a dispute about whether a package of care is needed and that matter goes to the dispute panel, what happens if the panel upholds the social service department's position? Who will reimburse the social services department for the expenditure that it incurs to avoid the fine? If it chooses to pay the fine, will the money be repaid to the department? That is not clear in the details that the Minister has given to us, and it would be helpful if she could clarify that.
      Having said all that, we wish to support the Conservative proposal to delete clause 6 simply because that clause will not be effective in ensuring that dispute resolution is fair and free of the bias that will exist if such issues are vested in the NHS.
      Glenda Jackson: I should like to make a brief contribution. I cannot support the argument to remove the clause that relates to appeals panels, nor do I share the somewhat cynical view, voiced by the hon. Members for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), that strategic health authorities or primary care trusts are so single-minded and blinkered that they believe that they have to preserve their vested interests, if that is what they perceive their responsibilities to be, to the exclusion of all else. My experience of the individuals in my strategic health authority or, indeed, PCT is that they are more than aware that there has to be particularly close working with social services on such issues to ensure that the patient drives the reforms in the NHS.
      5.30 pm
      I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Minister a question, and I hope that she can reassure me. It would be good if the chairmen of the panels were independent, but whomsoever serves on them, it is important that someone must speak for patients and carers. One of the

      763
      problems that I have come across in my constituency is that—with the best will in the world—medical professionals often speak to an individual about their illness, or their care requirements once they leave hospital, in a language that is totally foreign to them. It is entirely understandable that they often speak in a form of professional shorthand. There must be brought to bear in the dispute panels an informed perspective of what is being discussed, from the perspective of the health professionals and of those who work within social services, but it is important that the individual or carer at the centre of the discussion should have someone who can speak a language that everyone understands and who can understand the concerns of the individual in the case. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to reassure me on this.
      Mr. Waterson: I find myself agreeing with much of what the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) has just said. I hope that that will not cause too much damage to her socialist credentials. She is absolutely right. If nothing else, the Bill is consistent, and anyone with any optimism turning to a clause headed "Dispute resolution" is going to be severely disappointed because all that the Bill is concerned about is arguments between two or more public authorities. The words "patient" and "carer" are simply missing again. This provision involves two faceless bureaucracies fighting out in front of a panel. That disappointment is reflected in the comments of Age Concern, which states that
      "our concern remains that the Bill does not offer a speedy dispute resolution process for the patient, if they disagree with the discharge plan being offered."
      No such process is being proposed here.
      I want to raise a few points about the practicalities of the proposals, particularly in view of all the bureaucracy involved, and I endorse some of the points already made on that by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow). The proceedings of this panel have the smell of something that could go on for a long time, with all the arguments going on between the public authorities, so there is no prospect of any quick decisions being taken. There is certainly nothing here for the patient or carer who says that what is being proposed for them for today, tomorrow or next week is inappropriate, and who wants someone else to appeal to. I do not believe that that kind of time scale is being envisaged, although if the Minister thinks otherwise, she will no doubt say so.
      Amendments were also tabled in Committee at the behest of Age Concern and Help the Aged about having a fast-track complaints process for just this kind of situation, but, as is so often the case nowadays, they did not get debated due to time constraints. Age Concern also reflects concerns that have been expressed by at least two hon. Members in this debate when it asks whether
      "a panel established by a strategic health authority can be independent in resolving disputes between the health service and social services."
      It asks the Government
      "to clarify whether the proposed panel's decisions will be binding, or simply for advice only."
      It was helpful, up to a point, to have the Minister write to us following the Standing Committee about the likely contents of some of the regulations under the Bill.
      764
      It was helpful, but it raised a whole series of other questions. Her document talked about the constitution of the panels under clause 6(2)(a), saying:
      "The panel will seek information from the relevant professional staff (hospital, social services, PCT) and from the patient and family"
      here come the key words—
      "if appropriate."
      Who can imagine a more damning comment, albeit one buried in the small print, on this legislation? How can any reasonable person envisage a situation in which it would not be appropriate to get information from the patient, the family or any other carer? Will a patient or carer be allowed to address the panel? Will they be allowed to be represented? What sort of evidence will be required? What standards or burdens of proof will be required? How is all that going to be dealt with? If people are still unhappy at the end of these proceedings, will the process be subject to procedures such as judicial review or other complaints procedures within the NHS, or could those procedures take place in parallel with the new arrangements for a panel?
      How many layers of dispute resolution are we talking about? Ostensibly, we are discussing a panel hearing, but the document on the likely regulations also says:
      "The regulations could provide, for example, that a panel should not be established to hear a particular case unless the staff involved…"—
      again, that reflects the Bill's philosophy, which is that it is all to do with the staff and nothing to do with the patient—
      "cannot reach agreement on an informal basis".
      There we have alternative dispute resolution, as the lawyers would call it—an informal way of trying to establish a solution to a dispute, although one would hope that that would happen automatically in the real world. The document goes on to talk about the dispute being resolved at
      "a higher management level between the relevant healthcare provider and the local authority."
      Those seem to be steps to be addressed before the panel is even convened.
      Finally, the document says:
      "The regulations will provide that neither party can take the dispute to court until they have attempted to resolve it via the panel."
      What is "attempted" supposed to mean? How far does the panel have to go in considering all the evidence and all the arguments to allow parties to go on to the next stage of a legal challenge? When we read the small print, we see that we are being asked to establish not only a new bureaucracy and a new panel to determine such matters, but, on the face of it, a series of hoops through which people have to leap, none of which will happen in a hurry.
      Jacqui Smith: I am pleased that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), in moving the amendment, recognised that it is right and responsible to have in place a system for dispute resolution, because, of course, disputes can already exist between health and social services. In fact, it is sometimes precisely because of such disputes that people are delayed inappropriately in hospital. Through the Bill, we are trying to ensure

      765
      that the relative responsibilities of health and social services are clearly understood and that there is a process to ensure that individuals are not stuck in hospital, losing out because disputes cannot be sorted out.
      I am not quite clear whether the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) was suggesting that people should not try to settle disputes before they reach the panel. Of course, that is the obvious way to settle them. Many disputes are settled between the staff concerned in an individual case of discharge or by managers from health and social care. Disputes do not inevitably need to be discussed formally by a panel and the guidance will point out that, for reasons of time and resources, it is desirable to have a system under which two public bodies are encouraged to reach an amicable agreement rather than have constant recourse to the panel.
      Senior health and social services managers want to resolve matters, wherever possible, before spending time on dispute mechanisms, but we need a body that can arbitrate to achieve a satisfactory resolution if informal attempts to resolve problems are unsuccessful. In England, we think that the right body for that is the strategic health authority. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford repeated some of his concerns about whether that will create a bias to the NHS. I do not believe that it will. It is a practical response to the situation and the system.
      Strategic health authorities are, as the House would expect, strategic bodies. They do not have operational responsibility and they will not be running the acute hospital trusts that may be involved in a dispute. They have a performance management function one step removed from the day-to-day workings of the NHS. There is no equivalent strategic body for councils, so it makes sense for strategic authorities to be the bodies with responsibility for setting up the panels. They also have an interest in ensuring that acute trusts and PCTs meet their obligations, but not through rewarding the NHS at the expense of local authorities.
      I hope that I can reassure Members that the intention is that the panel will be composed of a local authority and an NHS representative with an independent chair. I have confidence in the integrity of the people who will be appointed to that panel. Being charged with such a function, the panels will of course have to act properly and in accordance with the rules of natural justice. The regulations will ensure that panel members are not from the bodies that are in dispute, and that the chair is independent of both NHS and local authority. There is no reason to suppose, therefore, that the panel will look more favourably on the NHS than on local councils.
      The regulations will also cover situations in which not all the bodies in dispute are located in the same strategic health authority. They will probably follow a simple rule, such as the rule that a dispute should be heard by the panel of the strategic health authority in whose area the hospital is situated.
      Several Members have asked about the particular rights of individuals. Clause 6 does not affect an individual's right to complain to either the NHS or social services about the care he or she has received, using the normal complaints procedures already
      766
      established, or to take legal action in the courts. The panels are not being established to divert individuals from the complaints procedures—although when they or their families have information that may help to resolve a dispute, they may be involved.
      Perhaps I can give some reassurance, at least to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson), by describing some of the improved safeguards—especially those relating to advocacy, about which my hon. Friend was concerned. Individuals wanting to know whether they should receive fully funded continuing NHS care should be informed as part of the assessment process. As I said earlier, the single assessment process and all other guidance make it clear that that is the first question NHS and social services need to consider when assessing the ongoing needs of someone who, potentially, has a primary need for health care. If an individual wishes to dispute an NHS decision that he or she is not a case for fully funded NHS care, the decision should be made within two weeks, and the individual can remain in hospital while the continuing care panel considers the case.
      If individuals wish to complain about the services offered by social services departments, that should be dealt with by the social services complaints system, which was established to enable individuals to make such representations. If they are not satisfied with the local authority's response, they can go to the local government ombudsman. If they are concerned about the whole care package and about whether it is safe for them to return home with that package, they should be able to raise that at an early stage with both NHS and social services representatives.
      The current system requires all trusts to have patient advocacy liaison services to give exactly the kind of support demanded by my hon. Friend. People raising what will clearly be difficult issues may well need such support. The representatives I have mentioned may be able to change the package, or to reassure patients and their families about its adequacy. There may be further recourse to the complaints provision, which will depend on the nature of the concerns involved.
      I hope I have reassured Members that our proposals are logical and sensible. I am not suggesting that the complaints procedure should be biased in favour of the health service; I am saying that the strategic health authority is the appropriate body to convene the complaints panel, which itself will be represented equally by the NHS and local authorities. It will also have an independent chair. Nothing about the panel will undermine what I agree is the important ability of individuals to raise concerns and complain when that is necessary.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Burns: I listened carefully to the Minister, and I appreciate that she is seeking to reassure the House, but I remain unreassured. I get the impression that she is talking about an idealised world, but things do not work out that way in the real world. We should improve the Bill now rather than repent when it is too late.
      No one doubts that dispute panels are needed. Heaven knows, we will need them if the Bill becomes law. However, I am still worried about making them the responsibility of the strategic health authorities—in

      767
      other words, the NHS, which has half of the vested interest in the problem. Even if every panel reached a judgment of Solomon in 100 per cent, of cases, the suspicion would remain among individuals and social services departments, if they did not like the decision that was reached, that a fair decision was impossible because of the way the panel was set up.
      I do not believe that there is a major difference between us on this matter, but I do not understand why the Minister has not agreed to bring the local authorities in to work on an equal footing with the strategic health authorities on the panels, subject to the regulations to be issued by the Minister. No accusation that the Government had fixed the system—and made the NHS, through the strategic health authorities, the judge and jury in a dispute—would then have an iota of justification.
      I should have thought that the Minister would welcome my advice. I am only trying to help to improve and enhance a rotten Bill. Despite my entreaties, it seems that the Minister is not going to budge. I am hurt about that, but it is an unfortunate fact. As a result, I intend to press the amendment to a Division. I invite my hon. Friends to join me in the Aye Lobby in an attempt to save the Minister from herself.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 198, Noes 318.

      Division No. 52]

      [5:48 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Allan, Richard

      Collins, Tim

      Amess, David

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Cotter, Brian

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Curry, rh David

      Bacon, Richard

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Baker, Norman

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Barker, Gregory

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Barrett, John

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Dodds, Nigel

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Dorrell, rh Stephen

      Bellingham, Henry

      Doughty, Sue

      Bercow, John

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Blunt, Crispin

      Evans, Nigel

      Boswell, Tim

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Fallon, Michael

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Brady, Graham

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Flight, Howard

      Brazier, Julian

      Flook, Adrian

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Forth, rh Eric

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Burnett, John

      Francois, Mark

      Burns, Simon

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Burnside, David

      Garnier, Edward

      Burstow, Paul

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Burt, Alistair

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Gidley, Sandra

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Cameron, David

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Grayling, Chris

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Cash, William

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Gummer, rh John

      Chope, Christopher

      Hammond, Philip

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hancock, Mike

      768

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Harvey, Nick

      Redwood, rh John

      Hawkins, Nick

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Rendel, David

      Heath, David

      Robathan, Andrew

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Hendry, Charles

      Hermon, Lady

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Holmes, Paul

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Ruffley, David

      Howard, rh Michael

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hunter, Andrew

      Selous, Andrew

      Jack, rh Michael

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Simmonds, Mark

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Keetch, Paul

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Knight rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Spring, Richard

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Steen, Anthony

      Lamb, Norman

      Streeter, Gary

      Lansley, Andrew

      Stunell, Andrew

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Leigh, Edward

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Syms, Robert

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Lidington, David

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Loughton, Tim

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Luff, Peter (M- Worcs)

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Thurso, John

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Maclean, rh David

      Tredinnick, David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Maples, John

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Viggers, Peter

      Walter, Robert

      Mates, Michael

      Waterson, Nigel

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Watkinson, Angela

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Mercer, Patrick

      Whittingdale, John

      Moore, Michael

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Moss, Malcolm

      Wiggin, Bill

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Willetts, David

      Norman, Archie

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Willis, Phil

      Öpik, Lembit

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Page, Richard

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Paice, James

      Young, rh Sir George

      Paterson, Owen

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Pickles, Eric

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Mr. David Wilshire and

      Mr. Laurence Robertson

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Austin, John

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Allen, Graham

      Baird, Vera

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Banks, Tony

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Beard, Nigel

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      769

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Fisher, Mark

      Bell, Stuart

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Benn, Hilary

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Bennett, Andrew

      Flint, Caroline

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Best, Harold

      Follett, Barbara

      Blackman, Liz

      Foster, rh Derek

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Borrow, David

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Gardiner, Barry

      Brennan, Kevin

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Bryant, Chris

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Gilroy, Linda

      Burgon, Colin

      Godsiff, Roger

      Burnham, Andy

      Goggins, Paul

      Cairns, David

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Grogan, John

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Casale, Roger

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Caton, Martin

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Hanson, David

      Challen, Colin

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Clapham, Michael

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Healey, John

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clelland, David

      Hendrick, Mark

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Coaker, Vernon

      Heppell, John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hesford, Stephen

      Cohen, Harry

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Coleman, Iain

      Hodge, Margaret

      Connarty, Michael

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Corston, Jean

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Cousins, Jim

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Cranston, hon. Ross

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Crausby, David

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cummings, John

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Hutton, rh John

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      David, Wayne

      Davidson, Ian

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jamieson, David

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Dawson, Hilton

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Doran, Frank

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Edwards, Huw

      Kidney, David

      Efford, Clive

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Etherington, Bill

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      770

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Lammy, David

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Lepper, David

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Leslie, Christopher

      Purchase, Ken

      Levin, Tom (High Peak)

      Purnell, James

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Linton, Martin

      Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Love, Andrew

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Rooney, Terry

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Ruane, Chris

      McCafferty, Chris

      Ruddock, Joan

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      MacDonald, Calum

      MacDougall, John

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      McFall, John

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Sawford, Phil

      McIsaac, Shona

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McKechin, Ann

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Sheerman, Barry

      McNamara, Kevin

      Sheridan, Jim

      McNulty, Tony

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      McWalter, Tony

      Singh, Marsha

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mallaber, Judy

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Martlew, Eric

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Soley, Clive

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Southworth, Helen

      Merron, Gillian

      Squire, Rachel

      Michael, rh Alun

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Miliband, David

      Stevenson, George

      Miller, Andrew

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Mole, Chris

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Moran, Margaret

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Morgan, Julie

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Morley, Elliot

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Mountford, Kali

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Mudie, George

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Mullin, Chris

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Timms, Stephen

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Trickett, Jon

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Truswell, Paul

      O'Hara, Edward

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Organ, Diana

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Owen, Albert

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Picking, Anne

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Plaskitt, James

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Pollard, Kerry

      Ward, Claire

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      771

      Watts, David

      Worthington, Tony

      White, Brian

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Wills, Michael

      Winnick, David

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Mr. Phil Woolas and

      Woodward, Shaun

      Mr. Nick Ainger

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Standing Order No. 9 and to Orders [29 October and 28 November 2002].

    Clause 12

      FREE PROVISION OF CERTAIN COMMUNITY CARE SERVICES
      Amendment proposed: No. 37, in page 7, line 32, leave out from 'require' to end of line 33 and insert
      'any of the following services to be provided free of charge for a period of more than six weeks—

      (a) the provision of accommodation under Part 3 of the National Assistance Act 1948;

      (b) the provision of personal care to a person in any place where that person is living, other than accommodation provided under that Part of that Act;

      (c) a service provided to a carer under section 2 of the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 which consists of the provision of personal care delivered to the person cared for (in accordance with subsection (3) of that section):.—[Jacqui Smith]

      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 464, Noes 50.

      Division No. 53]

      [6:03 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Benn, Hilary

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Ainger, Nick

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Bercow, John

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Best, Harold

      Allen, Graham

      Blackman, Liz

      Amess, David

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Blizzard, Bob

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Borrow, David

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Boswell, Tim

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Austin, John

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Bacon, Richard

      Brady, Graham

      Bailey, Adrian

      Brazier, Julian

      Baird, Vera

      Brennan, Kevin

      Banks, Tony

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Barker, Gregory

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Bryant, Chris

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Burgon, Colin

      Battle, John

      Burnham, Andy

      Beard, Nigel

      Burns, Simon

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Burnside, David

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Burt, Alistair

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Bell, Stuart

      Cairns, David

      Bellingham, Henry

      Cameron, David

      772

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Fisher, Mark

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Flight, Howard

      Casale, Roger

      Flint, Caroline

      Cash, William

      Flook, Adrian

      Caton, Martin

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Follett, Barbara

      Challen, Colin

      Forth, rh Eric

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Chope, Christopher

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Clapham, Michael

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Foulkes, rh George

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Francois, Mark

      Clelland, David

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Coaker, Vernon

      Garnier, Edward

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Cohen, Harry

      Gerrard, Neil

      Coleman, Iain

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Collins, Tim

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Connarty, Michael

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Cooper, Yvette

      Godsiff, Roger

      Corston, Jean

      Goggins, Paul

      Cousins, Jim

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Grayling, Chris

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Cranston, hon. Ross

      Grieve, Dominic

      Crausby, David

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Grogan, John

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Gummer, rh John

      Cummings, John

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Curry, rh David

      Hammond, Philip

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Hanson, David

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      David, Wayne

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Davidson, Ian

      Hawkins, Nick

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Healey, John

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Dawson, Hilton

      Hendry, Charles

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Heppell, John

      Dismore, Andrew

      Hermon, Lady

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Dodds, Nigel

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Doran, Frank

      Hodge, Margaret

      Dorrell, rh Stephen

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Howard, rh Michael

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Eagle, Maria (L'poolGarston)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Edwards, Huw

      Efford, Clive

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Etherington, Bill

      Evans, Nigel

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Fallon, Michael

      Hunter, Andrew

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Hutton, rh John

      773

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Malins, Humfrey

      Jack, rh Michael

      Mallaber, Judy

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Maples, John

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Jamieson, David

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Jenkins, Brian

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Martlew, Eric

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Mates, Michael

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Mercer, Patrick

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Miliband, David

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Miller, Andrew

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Kemp, Fraser

      Mole, Chris

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Kidney, David

      Moran, Margaret

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Morgan, Julie

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Morley, Elliot

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Moss, Malcolm

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Mountford, Kali

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Mudie, George

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Mullin, Chris

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Lammy, David

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Leigh, Edward

      Norman, Archie

      Lepper, David

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Leslie, Christopher

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Organ, Diana

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Lidington, David

      Owen, Albert

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Page, Richard

      Linton, Martin

      Paice, James

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Loughton, Tim

      Paterson, Owen

      Love, Andrew

      Picking, Anne

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Pickles, Eric

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Plaskitt, James

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Pollard, Kerry

      McCabe, Stephen

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Portillo, rh Michael

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      MacDonald, Calum

      MacDougall, John

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      McFall, John

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Purchase, Ken

      McKechin, Ann

      Purnell, James

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Maclean, rh David

      Quinn, Lawrie

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Redwood, rh John

      McNulty, Tony

      Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      McWalter, Tony

      Robathan, Andrew

      774

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Swayne, Desmond

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Syms, Robert

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Taylor, Dan (Stockton S)

      Rooney, Terry

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Ruane, Chris

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Timms, Stephen

      Ruffley, David

      Tipping, Paddy

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Tredinnick, David

      Salter, Martin

      Trickett, Jon

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Truswell, Paul

      Sawford, Phil

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Selous, Andrew

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Sheridan, Jim

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Viggers, Peter

      Simmonds, Mark

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Walter, Robert

      Singh, Marsha

      Ward, Claire

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wareing, Robert N

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Watts, David

      White Brian

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Whittingdale, John Wicks, Malcolm

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Wiggin Bill

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Willetts, David

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Wills, Michael

      Soley, Clive

      Wilshire, David

      Southworth, Helen

      Winnick, David

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Spring, Richard

      Woodward, Shaun

      Squire, Rachel

      Worthington, Tony

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Steen, Anthony

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Stevenson, George

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Young, rh Sir George

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Strang, rh Dr Gavin

      Mr. Phil Woolas and

      Streeter, Gary

      Gillian Merron

      NOES

      Allan, Richard

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Baker, Norman

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Barrett, John

      Cotter, Brian

      Beith, rh A J

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Doughty, Sue

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Burnett, John

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Burstow, Paul

      Gidley, Sandra

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      775

      Hancock, Mike

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Rendel, David

      Harvey, Nick

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Heath, David

      Sanders, Adrian

      Holmes, Paul

      Stunell, Andrew

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Keetch, Paul

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Thurso, John

      Lamb, Norman

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Moore, Michael

      Willis, Phil

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Mrs. Annette L. Brooke and

      Richard Younger-Ross

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Government amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 38 to 40 agreed to.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      6.18 pm
      Jacqui Smith: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      Throughout Second Reading, in Committee and during today's deliberations, we have given this Bill fair and measured consideration, and I want to thank all who were involved in Committee for that. Combined with a significant package of extra funding for older people's services, the Bill will bring an end to widespread delayed discharges, and ensure that older people get the services that they need when they need them. It is a Bill that is about the approximately 5,000 mainly elderly people who are delayed unnecessarily in an acute hospital bed. We know that an acute ward is very much the wrong place for someone to be when they are no longer in need of acute hospital care. To be delayed on an acute ward is demoralising for the individual; it can damage their confidence and their prospects for living independently or returning home in future. It is worrying for their families and carers, and bad for the taxpayer and the NHS, and that is why we are determined to tackle the problem.
      We have made progress. Fewer people are delayed in hospital now than in 1997, but each person stuck in hospital when they want to be out is an argument for change. Throughout the passage of the Bill, Opposition Members have been quick to oppose but slow to suggest alternatives. As we have heard this afternoon, the Liberal Democrats propose lots of plans, but they have been short on solutions. We know that the Conservatives, who we have learned are the new-found friends of local government, oppose the extra investment that the Government propose—they voted against it—but they cannot even claim to be reformers. In their opposition to the Bill, they certainly cannot claim to be the friends of older people.
      The Bill reflects our determination to match our extra investment with reform of the system to ensure that the needs of older people come first. It will do that, first, by creating a strong financial incentive for local authorities to comply with their existing duties to assist the needs of individuals who are likely to need community care services on discharge from hospital and to provide services to those individuals.
      776
      Secondly, the Bill strengthens partnerships and brings about increased co-operation between the NHS and local authorities by introducing new duties for them to consult each other in assessing the patient's needs and deciding what services they will make available within set time scales.
      Thirdly, by removing local authorities' power to charge for community equipment and intermediate care, the Bill simplifies the existing charging system, making it easier for users to understand and easier for local authorities and the NHS to provide those vital services jointly. Contrary to the concern that has been expressed today about partnership between health and local authorities, I believe that the Bill will lead to increased co-operation and joint working. For the first time, there will be a strong incentive for partners to get together to ensure that their discharge procedures work.
      In certain ways, the Bill is already having a positive impact. Local authorities and their NHS partners are coming together in order to find common solutions to common problems and acknowledging the different parts that they have to play in achieving success. We know that planning for the implementation of reimbursement has led many partners to agree, for example, that they need to speed up their plans to implement fully a single assessment process. I feel confident that with so much good work and innovation already going on around the country, by the time reimbursement is implemented later this year, many local authorities and their NHS partners will have been able to find new and creative solutions to the problem of delayed discharge.
      Opposition Members have worked hard during the Bill's passage to paint local authorities as victims. In fact, there is only one victim—the older people who are stuck in hospital when they should be out there getting the sort of services and support that we know they want and deserve. Let us be clear: the Bill does not place new responsibilities on local authorities. It simply seeks to add maximum time scales for the assessment and provision of services for which local authorities already have responsibility and places communications between a hospital and a local authority about a patient's case on a formal legal basis.
      Of course, the Bill places new responsibilities on the NHS to inform local authorities when someone may need ongoing care in order to leave hospital and when people are fit to be discharged. We know that the NHS has not always taken its responsibilities to communicate with social services departments as seriously as it should. The Bill rectifies that and places the responsibility for payment where the responsibility for provision already lies.
      As I have said already, these are not new responsibilities. Councils have had 18 months and £300 million in building care capacity grant, which has provided vital funding for councils to invest in the services and capacity needed to prevent delays. That investment has brought results. Almost 7,000 older people were trapped in hospital in March 1997, but by September last year that level had been reduced to 4,147. However, we have recognised that there are funding pressures for social services. That is why, in addition to the £1 billion package for older people announced on 23 July and the local government allocation announced on 5 December, on Second Reading my right hon. Friend

      777
      the Secretary of State announced that an extra £100 million per full year of the scheme will be transferred from the NHS budget to local authorities in order to help them to build the capacity that will help them to avoid the costs of reimbursement and, most importantly, ensure that people will get the services that they need.
      There has quite rightly been a focus during our debates here and in Committee on the needs of individual patients and their carers. That is right, because it is that focus that is at the centre of the Bill.
      As I have explained this afternoon, the Bill does nothing to weaken a patient's right to consent or not to treatment. By creating a financial incentive for local authorities to carry out their duties, it will help to ensure that the needs of individual patients are met more quickly, and it will increase the choice that is available to them in terms of the services that they receive.
      In the amendments that we have tabled today we have recognised the concerns about the needs and role of carers. We have also ensured that carers' services for discharge will need to be in place and that carers can benefit from free community equipment where they need it for their caring.
      Reimbursement and other proposals in the Bill will lead to increased quality and choice for older people. If local authorities are to avoid delays, in the long term they will need to use the extra investment made available by the Government to invest in a wide range of services and capacity so that they can respond flexibly to an individual's needs, not just with residential care but also with intermediate and interim care, extra sheltered housing, equipment and adaptation services, and packages of intensive support at home, among other provisions.
      The Bill presents an important opportunity to end widespread delayed discharge and to ensure that thousands of older people do not wait needlessly on an acute ward every day but are provided with a range of high quality community care services to meet their needs as soon as they are ready to leave. Ultimately, a safe transfer from an acute ward to a place where their needs can be more appropriately met is the minimum that older people should be entitled to and expect. That is what the Bill will ensure happens and I commend it to the House.
      6.26 pm
      Mr. Burns: To listen to the Minister, one might think that the Bill, which has almost completed its passage through this House, had emanated from a group of young Labour researchers meeting in some chi-chi wine bar in Islington, who, as the chardonnay got to them, thought they had come up with the most wonderful wheeze to deal at a stroke with the problem of delayed discharges. More worryingly, it seems that when they awoke the next morning they did not realise that the hazy wheeze of the night before was not such a good idea, and proceeded to pass the idea on to Ministers who, desperate for a quick fix, immediately embraced their ridiculous proposal and got the parliamentary
      778
      draftsmen to produce a Bill which the Minister tells us is a series of incentives. We all know that the Bill is not a series of incentives: it is a straightforward system to fine local authorities.
      On 11 December 2002, the Secretary of State gave the game away when, in answer to an hon. Member's question on a statement in the House, he referred quite blatantly to fines. The Minister, heroically—partly, I suspect, because she does not read Hansard on a daily basis—continued to maintain the myth that the Bill was an incentive measure. Even she finally slipped up today. She saw truth staring her in the face and the F-word passed her lips. She admitted that the Bill was a series of measures to fine local authorities.
      What is so deeply disturbing about the Bill and the complacency of Ministers in the Department of Health is that the Bill in no shape or form recognises the crisis in long-term care in Britain—a crisis that has been gathering speed since 1997. Nowhere does the Bill address the problem of the loss of more than 60,000 care home beds, the closure of more than 2,000 care homes, or the fact that 100,000 households are no longer receiving domiciliary care compared with five years ago. That is what is so disgraceful about the Bill. It is a wasted opportunity.
      By creating a system in part 1 that will effectively bamboozle local authorities into ensuring that patients are discharged from hospitals to avoid a fine, the Government think they have found a panacea, whereas in fact it is a short-term fix that will end in disaster. I predict now that in the next two years readmission rates for elderly people leaving hospital will increase at a higher level than the current rises. People will be taken from hospital and placed in what is not necessarily the most appropriate care for their needs because the local authority may be charged a fine.
      The Government have got it wrong; that is not the right approach. As hon. Members have said, it will undo and damage partnerships between the health service and social services, which have taken a long time to achieve because of natural problems and jealousies in relation to who is responsible for funding. Under the previous Government—and, to their credit, this Government—the process of breaking down the barriers between the health service and social services has moved significantly forward, which is to be welcomed. This Bill will do great damage to that process, as it will create tensions between the two sides and reintroduce a blame culture that we all hoped was being banished as a thing of the past.
      Although the Government have made money available for three years for local authorities to try to offset, in theory, the impact that the fines will have on social service funding and spending, there are also problems with that, as the fines are to be introduced on 1 April this year, as is the money. If we had had more time on Report we could have debated this matter, but if the money is to come in on 1 April 2003, and if the legislation is passed and the Government proceed with their cock-eyed scheme, the policy should have been to introduce the fines in April 2004 to give local authorities a 12-month breathing space to seek to resolve further the problems of delayed discharges. Bringing in those measures at the same time is a mistake. In addition, I believe that the money that the Government are making

      779
      available will not match the level of fines that local authorities think they may incur, particularly in the early stages of the new policy.
      For all of those reasons, I remain implacably opposed to part 1 of the Bill. I am disappointed that the Government have not been prepared to listen more carefully to those who oppose the Bill and who have highlighted its failings. I am a realist—I know my lot in life—and I understand that the Minister of State, charming as she is, will not necessarily listen to my helpful advice. But she does not have to listen to my advice: from her point of view, there are far more credible critics of this policy. There are Back-Bench Labour Members with great experience of social services and local government or the health service who are gravely concerned about this aspect of the Bill. There is the Local Government Association, whose leader, Sir Jeremy Beecham, unless I am wrong, is the Labour leader of Newcastle city council. There are most of the voluntary groups and charity groups in the long-term care sector. The care home owner associations and operators also believe that the Bill is a disaster. Many local authorities throughout the country genuinely believe that the Government are wrong and that the Bill will not solve the problems that they expect it to tackle.
      I do not know whether the Minister has had an opportunity to phone social services departments in England and Wales. My office had a charming conversation with her social services department. We also contacted that of the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) and of the other Minister of State. We even spoke to the social services department in the Prime Minister's constituency. Not one had a smidgen of enthusiasm for fines, and they were worried about the amount that they might have to pay in fines in the next 12 months. Despite that, Ministers have not been prepared to reconsider.
      We are now beginning the last 25 minutes of debate in the House on this nasty and flawed measure. Of course, it will leave the House with a majority in the next hour and go to another place. I assure the Minister that we shall continue to oppose it there, because we believe that there is a serious problem that needs tackling. I agree with her that the real losers are the patients who experience delayed discharge from hospital. However, the Bill is not the way in which to help them and minimise the problem. I therefore urge my hon. Friends to join me in vehemently opposing Third Reading.
      6.37 pm
      Mr. David Hinehliffe: The Government deserve much credit for the steps that they have taken and the measures that they have introduced to improve collaborative working between health and social services departments. However, the Bill does not deserve credit and I agree with some of the points that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) made and the anxieties that several hon. Members have expressed.
      The Health Committee examined delayed discharges, and we did not receive evidence from any source—health departments, social services departments or voluntary organisations—in support of the principles at the heart of the Bill. Not even Department of Health officials appeared especially enthusiastic about it. I
      780
      made my anxieties known on Second Reading, but the Minister did not respond to them. She is a competent Minister, for whom I have a high regard, but I remain convinced that the Bill does not tackle those concerns.
      The model is based on the policies that were applied 10 years ago in Sweden. It was interesting to visit that country shortly before Christmas and discuss with political colleagues in the Swedish Parliament whether the measure could work. I admit that some improvements have occurred in Sweden, but colleagues were concerned about the number of people whose discharge from hospital was delayed. In Sweden, county councils run hospitals and municipalities run social services, and integration is being considered.
      I humbly suggest that the Government may eventually want to consider that the lack of an integrated health and social care system is the genuine problem. An increasing number of Labour Members who have examined the matter are beginning to agree that integration is the way forward.
      I cannot support the Bill. It is a bad measure that has not been thought through. It will damage the good, positive relationships between health and social services departments that the Government have created in some areas. I hope that, even at this late stage, they will see sense and take advantage of opportunities in another place to withdraw the measure.
      6.40 pm
      Sir George Young: I hope that the Government will take to heart the very measured comments that we have just heard from the Chairman of the Select Committee on Health.
      I preface my brief remarks by saying that, given the terrible hand the Minister was dealt in being asked to take the Bill through, she did so with competence and patience, both in Standing Committee and on Report.
      I said on Second Reading, which seems very recent, given the speed at which the Bill has gone through the House, that the Bill was one of the worst I had seen in some 30 years. Despite the heroic attempts by the Opposition parties and the welcome amendment that we have just passed on carers, I think that it is one of the worst Bills to go through the House in those 30 years. If there is one discharge that should be delayed, it is the discharge of this Bill from the other place.
      I hope that the Government will find that their ambitions to get the Bill through quite quickly, by April this year, are dashed by the very serious consideration that those in another place give it. We have not had proper time to consider it. There were chunks that we did not debate in Standing Committee. We lost an amount of time on Report because of the statements that, understandably, were made.
      Not only has the Bill been rushed through, but the timetable for implementation is very challenging. The Minister has ignored the many pleas from those who have to implement the Bill to delay it until April 2004. That was a concession that she might well have made.
      Of course, the Bill is unwanted by local authorities, but it is also unwanted by the health service. We heard in Standing Committee of representatives of the NHS Confederation and of the medical profession saying that

      781
      they did not want it either, because it will damage the relationships that they value between them and social services.
      The Bill has been condemned by all the voluntary organisations. Just today, we heard from Help the Aged, Age Concern and the Alzheimer's Society. I cannot think of a single voluntary organisation that has welcomed the Bill. The point made by those to whom I have referred is that the Bill is misguided, because it focuses on one very narrow part of the problem—the discharge from hospital to care in the community, a care home—instead of standing back and taking a holistic look at the problem from start to finish.
      The Bill is unfair and unilateral. It involves a unilateral fine by one part of the public sector on another, with no opportunity for that other sector to obtain reimbursement when it faces costs because of delays by the NHS. If there is a dispute, as we heard earlier today, the jury is not wholly unbiased.
      The Bill ignores the role that the Government have played in reducing the capacity in the care home sector, which is one of the strategic reasons behind delayed discharges. It will distort local government priorities. Local authorities will spend less time and energy on prevention to avoid the fines. As we heard today, if one wants to get somebody into a care home, the best way to do it now is to get them into hospital first. The law of unintended consequences and perverse incentives will apply.
      On Second Reading, the Bill was virtually friendless on the Government Benches. Indeed, the only contribution from Labour Members on Third Reading has been deeply hostile. At a time when the NHS needs less bureaucracy it will get more, with invoices flying backwards and forwards between social services and the NHS. I know of no right-wing economist in this country who ever proposed an internal market of this nature to deal with the problem.
      I believe that the Bill is flawed in concept and will be divisive in its consequences. I shall walk through the No Lobby with a spring in my step to register in the only way still available to me my deep-rooted objection to this legislation.
      6.44 pm
      Mr. Kevin Hughes: I welcomed the Bill on Second Reading, and I assure my hon. Friend the Minister that I shall support her in the Lobby tonight.
      The Bill is an instrument, albeit a blunt instrument, as described by the Select Committee of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), to concentrate people's minds.
      The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, for whom I have a great deal of time and respect, seem able to see only the negative points. They seem to think that the Bill will create a combat atmosphere between social services and the health services. I do not see it that way. The Bill will concentrate people's minds on better co-operation.
      Sir George Young: Like the Whips Office.
      Mr. Hughes: No, not like that.
      We are talking about people, mostly old people, being trapped in hospital, and some social service departments and health authorities are doing very little to tackle that. Fortunately, in my constituency, they are doing something. Planning for discharge starts before patients are admitted for elective surgery, and that is how it should be. The team that works in Doncaster can call on a range of options. If necessary, it can use an intermediate care ward, which has been provided by joint funding, as well as aids, adaptations and all the rest of it. The proposals need not be combative at all; they can lead to more co-operation.
      Let us not forget that the Bill is about getting people out of the hospital beds in which they are trapped even though they no longer need health care treatment. That is why I shall walk through the Lobby tonight in support of my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government.
      6.46 pm
      Mr. Burstow: I note that the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) will not walk through the Lobby with a spring in his step, unlike the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young).
      I thank the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and his Select Committee for the report on delayed discharge that they published last year. It is an invaluable piece of research, which I found very useful in Committee, and many of the questions put to officials during the inquiry provided useful answers. As I read through the evidence given to the inquiry, it suggested to me that there was a great lack of enthusiasm among officials and, indeed, anyone who gave evidence about this approach. Indeed, officials said that delayed discharges are a symptom of a wider, whole system problem and that we are lacking in capacity, in planning and in preventing admissions in the first place. Four Committee sittings and consideration on Report later, nothing fundamental has changed in the Bill.
      Rather than building on and continuing to encourage the partnership between the NHS and social services departments that hon. Members on both sides of the House would wish to develop, the Bill will create an adversarial approach of game playing and cost shunting between the two. Worse still, it will turn the patient into a commodity to be haggled over by social services departments and the NHS. There is no room in the Bill for informed consent.
      As the Bill has progressed through the House, I have been drawn to the conclusion that it is about beds, not the needs or interests of patients. It is a strange sort of partnership that gives one partner a stick to beat the other. That sounds rather more like domestic violence than addressing the real needs of the health service.
      The Bill, as it leaves the House, will put in place a system of fines, as the Minister has confirmed from the Dispatch Box today, that will distort the spending

      783
      priorities of local social services departments. Those departments will have to prioritise hospital patients for assessments and services, because a fine is attached, at the expense of those who are hidden, frail and isolated, in their own homes and who count only when they wind up in hospital because of a fall or some other mishap.
      In Committee, the Minister talked about the introduction of financial flows—she did so again today—that will lead to hospitals picking up a penalty if emergency admissions take place. She conveniently did not mention that that reform would not start until April 2004. She did not tell us that the single assessment process will not start until that date; nor did she tell us that, although some extra cash for some councils will arrive in April this year, councils did not know the details of those budgets until December and are only now beginning to find out what they mean for them and their communities in terms of council tax rises and investment in services. It is hardly surprising that the services to bridge the gap in capacity have not yet been put in place. The Minister has remained blind to the issues of capacity throughout this debate.
      When the Bill makes its way to the House of Lords, I can assure the Government that my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches will do all that they can to ensure that it does not have a safe passage through the other place. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) and my staff for their hard work on the Bill. This is a bad Bill, and the Liberal Democrats reject it. It puts beds before patients and sets the NHS up against social services. It makes it much more likely that, in future, more people will get the wrong care in the wrong place at the wrong time.
      6.50 pm
      Andy Burnham: I have sat here all afternoon listening to an unending stream of negativity and doom from the Opposition Benches. I feel compelled to rise to speak, because the Bill offers two major benefits to which the two Opposition parties have given no regard whatever. First, it will lead us, as a society, to support more people at home and lead to much less reliance on institutional care than at present. Secondly, it will bring down the average length of stay in acute beds, which will allow more patients to be treated on the NHS. All Opposition Members agreed that it would bring down the average length of stay, yet they seemed to suggest that that was purely negative. I put it to them that it might actually be positive.
      Why will the Bill help more people to live at home for longer? My own family experience tells me that, once a patient has been deemed fit for discharge—that is, once a clinical decision has been made to discharge them, so there is no question of their being forced home too early—it is in the patient's direct interest that that discharge should happen as soon as possible. We have all seen examples of people who have languished in hospital for too long, then drifted into residential or nursing care and lost the opportunity to go back home and be supported there. The Bill will expedite the discharge process and, together with the provision of free aids and adaptations, get more people home once they are able to cope.
      Unlike some on the Conservative Front Bench, I do not believe that nursing homes are a good place to be. I saw my grandmother deteriorate rapidly after she went
      784
      from a long stay in hospital to residential care and then to nursing care. Her personal possessions were stolen while she was in residential care, and her wedding ring was ripped off her finger in the last days before she died. Nursing homes are not a good place to be. We need to encourage more people to live independently at home, which is what I believe the Bill will allow us to do.
      The Bill will bring down the average length of stay in NHS beds, which will allow us to treat more NHS patients. Like the Health Committee Chairman, I, too, went to Sweden. We visited the Huddinge university hospital and heard from Dr. Lars Collste.
      Mr. Burns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman did not go to Sweden, so I will not let him intervene.
      Dr. Collste told us that, before the cross-charging system was introduced in Sweden, the average length of stay for an in-patient episode was seven to eight days. After the system was introduced, it went down to 4.8 days. His view was that the system worked.
      Mr. Burns: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Andy Burnham: I will not, because other Members want to speak.
      We also heard, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) said, that the system was being reviewed by the Swedish Parliament. That is true. It is looking at ways in which the cross-charging system can be reconciled with more co-operation. It is not ditching the system; it is simply looking at how municipalities and counties can co-operate more when the system is introduced. I do not think that that is a bad thing, and the Department might like to look at the experience in Sweden before the measures in the Bill are finalised.
      I congratulate the Minister on her skilful steering of the Bill through Parliament, and I look forward to it bringing the two major improvements that I have outlined to my constituents.
      6.54 pm
      Mrs. Joan Humble: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important issue. I shall preface my remarks by saying that I fully support the aims of the Bill. I have listened to my hon. Friend the Minister speak with some passion about the needs of elderly people trapped in hospital beds who ought not to be there and who need an appropriate form of care. It is absolutely vital that those people get the care appropriate to their condition or illness, whether that be a hospital bed, a nursing home bed, a place in a care home or intermediate care home, or support in their own home.
      I rehearsed some of my concerns on Second Reading, and I still have concerns about the implications for local authorities, but one aspect of the Bill that I welcome is the introduction of new, robust joint assessment procedures. As I have said to my hon. Friend the Minister before, in my local area we have good working between health and social services, which I want to continue, but I am aware that the situation nationwide

      785
      is variable, so it is vital that we have a new and comprehensive assessment procedure to benefit patients in hospitals.
      Will my hon. Friend the Minister look carefully at the implementation timetable and listen to the concerns of local authorities, the health service and, especially, those elderly people who all need caring for? Will she carefully consider the comments that she is getting back to ensure that she is properly monitoring the implementation timetable so that local authorities, health services and, above all, the elderly people we represent are not disadvantaged?
      6.56 pm
      Dr. Desmond Turner: I echo the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) for clemency for local authorities such as mine, which have been doing their damnedest to do exactly what the Government have asked. They are producing the close working, but, none the less, they face problems and circumstances that are totally beyond their control, such as shortages of nurses and elderly mentally infirm beds as well as trained care workers to provide domiciliary care services. That means that punitive measures in clause 4 will cost them about £1 million a year if they are implemented this spring.
      The authorities need more time, and it would be folly and very sad if the £100 million that the Government are giving to extend care capacity for this purpose were simply taken back in fines. That would achieve nothing. Therefore, sensitive timing of the implementation of the more difficult measures is essential.
      6.57 pm
      Glenda Jackson: On Second Reading, I paid tribute to the absolute commitment of Camden, my local authority, to creating a multi-faceted, properly integrated, high-quality service for elderly people. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister paid tribute to Camden and, I believe, Croydon on Second Reading and in Committee for their abilities in reducing delayed discharges, but I must tell her that my local authority's concerns are by no means stilled or quieted. I add my voice to those of my hon. Friends who have urged the Government to pay particular attention to the timetabling of the introduction of these measures.
      On going into the fine detail, my local authority discovered that, far from getting a 6 per cent. increase, it is receiving only a 3 per cent. increase in social services funding. Certain authorities suffer from a shortage of available places, because the majority of elderly people undoubtedly want to remain in their locality, which can be a particular difficulty for an inner-London authority such as mine. There are also concerns in my local authority over the costs of implementing the examination of throughput on the issue. It urges the Government to allow it time properly to track how it can better integrate the more-than-one service required to ensure that elderly people are not left in hospital past the point required by their medical care.
      I urge the Government to delay, if possible, the introduction of the measures until all local authorities have properly examined such questions. I accept that
      786
      not all local authorities are as effective or committed as Camden, but I do not believe that the effective and committed local authorities should be punished because others have still not got their act together.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 323, Noes 188.

      Division No. 54]

      [7:00 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cousins, Jim

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Cox, Tom (Tooting)

      Ainger, Nick

      Cranston, hon. Ross

      Allen, Graham

      Crausby, David

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cummings, John

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Austin, John

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Baird, Vera

      David, Wayne

      Banks, Tony

      Davidson, Ian

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Battle, John

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Beard, Nigel

      Dawson, Hilton

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Denham, rh John

      Bell, Stuart

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Benn, Hilary

      Dismore, Andrew

      Bennett, Andrew

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Best, Harold

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Betts, Clive

      Doran, Frank

      Blackman, Liz

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Borrow, David

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Edwards, Huw

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Efford, Clive

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Brennan, Kevin

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Etherington, Bill

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Fisher, Mark

      Bryant, Chris

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Burgon, Colin

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Burnham, Andy

      Flint, Caroline

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Cairns, David

      Follett, Barbara

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Casale, Roger

      Caton, Martin

      Foulkes, rh George

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Challen, Colin

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Clapham, Michael

      Gardiner, Barry

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Gilroy, Linda

      Clelland, David

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Goggins, Paul

      Coaker, Vernon

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Cohen, Harry

      Grogan, John

      Coleman, Iain

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Connarty, Michael

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hanson, David

      Corston, Jean

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      787

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Healey, John

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Heppell, John

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Martlew, Eric

      Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Miliband, David

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Miller, Andrew

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Mole, Chris

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Hutton, rh John

      Moran, Margaret

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Morgan, Julie

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Mountford, Kali

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Mudie, George

      Mullin, Chris

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Jamieson, David

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Organ, Diana

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Owen, Albert

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Kemp, Fraser

      Picking, Anne

      Kidney, David

      Pickthall, Colin

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Plaskitt, James

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Lammy, David

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Lepper, David

      Purchase, Ken

      Leslie, Christopher

      Purnell, James

      Levitt Tom (High Peak)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Linton, Martin

      Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Love, Andrew

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Ruane, Chris

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Ruddock, Joan

      MacDonald, Calum

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      MacDougall, John

      McFall, John

      Salter, Martin

      McIsaac, Shona

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McKechin, Ann

      Sawford, Phil

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McNamara, Kevin

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McNulty, Tony

      Sheerman, Barry

      MacShane, Denis

      Sheridan, Jim

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McWalter, Tony

      Simon, Siôn (B' ham Erdington)

      788

      Singh, Marsha

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Trickett, Jon

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Finsbury)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Soley, Clive

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Southworth, Helen

      Ward, Claire

      Spellar, rh John

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Squire, Rachel

      Watts, David

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      White, Brian

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Stevenson, George

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wills, Michael

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Woodward, Shaun

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Woolas, Phil

      Stringer, Graham

      Worthington, Tony

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

      Wright David (Telford)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Timms, Stephen

      Joan Ryan and

      Tipping, Paddy

      Gillian Merron

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Collins, Tim

      Allan, Richard

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Amess, David

      Cotter, Brian

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Curry, rh David

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Bacon, Richard

      Baker, Norman

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Barker, Gregory

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Dodds, Nigel

      Barrett, John

      Dorrell, rh Stephen

      Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

      Doughty, Sue

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Bellingham, Henry

      Evans, Nigel

      Bercow, John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Blunt, Crispin

      Fallon, Michael

      Boswell, Tim

      Flight, Howard

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Flook, Adrian

      Forth, rh Eric

      Brady, Graham

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Brazier, Julian

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Gidley, Sandra

      Burnett, John

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Burns, Simon

      Grayling, Chris

      Burnside, David

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Burstow, Paul

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Gummer, rh John

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Hammond, Philip

      Cameron, David

      Hancock, Mike

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Cash, William

      Harvey, Nick

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Chope, Christopher

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hendry, Charles

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hermon, Lady

      789

      Hinchliffe, David

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Holmes, Paul

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Howard, rh Michael

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Redwood, rh John

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Rendel, David

      Jack, rh Michael

      Robathan, Andrew

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Keetch, Paul

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Ruffley, David

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Sanders, Adrian

      Lamb, Norman

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Lansley, Andrew

      Selous, Andrew

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Leigh, Edward

      Shepherd, Richard

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Simmonds, Mark

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Lidington, David

      Soames, Nicholas

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Loughton, Tim

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Spring, Richard

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Steen, Anthony

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Streeter, Gary

      Maclean, rh David

      Stunell, Andrew

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Swayne, Desmond

      Malins, Humfrey

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Syms, Robert

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mates, Michael

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Maude, rh Francis

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Mercer, Patrick

      Thurso, John

      Moore, Michael

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Moss, Malcolm

      Tredinnick, David

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Norman, Archie

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Viggers, Peter

      Öpik, Lembit

      Walter, Robert

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Page, Richard

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Paice, James

      Whittingdale, John

      Paterson, Owen

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Pickles, Eric

      Wiggin, Bill

      790

      Willetts, David

      Young, rh Sir George

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Willis, Phil

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Mr. David Wilshire and

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Mr. Mark Francois

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  PETITIONS

    Ethical Investment
    7.15 pm
    Mr. Iain Coleman: I have a petition of approximately 1,200 signatures, which has been compiled and organised by Chelsea Financial Services, a business located in my constituency. The petition urges the Government to take further action to support and assist those companies and organisations working in ethical investment. The petition has my complete support and I would very much welcome the support of the House for it.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Natural Health Products
    Mr. Nigel Evans: I have a petition from Consumers for Health Choice from the Ribble Valley and other parts of the United Kingdom who use health shops, with 3,700 signatures on it. It declares that
    consumers in the United Kingdom have for many years maintained good health by choosing to take safe vitamin and mineral supplements and Herbal remedies; and fears that the European Food Supplements Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products would severely restrict the number and range of such products on general retail sale in the future.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons requires the Secretary of State for Health does all in his power to protect the rights of UK consumers by ensuring that such European legislation does not unnecessarily and unacceptably restrict the availability of natural Health Products.
    And the Petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Food Standards Agency
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Kemp.]
    7.16 pm
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Outside very large urban areas there are still some small towns that manage to maintain a number of specialist shops. I am rather spoilt in my constituency because we have one or two very good ones, and one of the particular favourites of my constituents is a family firm of bakers called Chatwins, which has in its time done considerable damage to my hips and waistline but is much appreciated by those who enjoy its products. Since it is now, I believe, run by the fourth generation of that family, it has a long tradition of supplying very high quality goods. I therefore was considerably surprised when, in the summer, we were struck by a very upsetting incidence of salmonella and I received a letter from Chatwins, setting out a series of circumstances that I thought rather worrying.
    Let me begin by saying that I believe that in this day and age we have very many more manufactured foods than we used to, which frequently contain every known chemical on the face of God's earth, and the circumstances in which food is sold to the public seem to me to be in need of considerable and careful monitoring. I in no way resile from the position that in public health we need not only very high standards but standards that everyone appreciates and accepts. As a very young doctor's wife I knew a senior partner who was then medical officer of health in a Devonian borough where I lived at the time and who once, when I ventured to say that I had seen the kitchens of the local hotel and they left a little bit to be desired, informed me, "Yes, dear, but the food is absolutely marvellous."
    We have moved on since those days, but it is very important with any kind of public body that is undertaking the role of a statutory body—which is what the Food Standards Agency is—that it should be not only aware of the impact of what it is doing but absolutely certain that it does it in a manner that can not only be defended to the general public but supported by the general public. I was therefore very concerned when I received a letter, saying that after the recent salmonella outbreak, the business received unfair treatment from the Food Standards Agency.
    "After our name was mentioned in about half the cases, the local Environmental Health Officers carried out tests in our bakery and shops on Tuesday 8th October. We also followed all"
    their
    "recommendations…including only using pasteurised eggs.
    We had a follow-up meeting with the EHO on Friday llth October where we were informed that all tests carried out…proved to be negative, and that they would try and keep our name out of any press release.
    On Tuesday 15th October we were informed…of the sad news that one man had died over the weekend. They also faxed us a copy of the press release from the FSA…."—
    in which the name of the bakery was mentioned, which appeared not only in the local but in the national press—
    "From this point on it appeared to be fair to link Chatwins with the death of the first and also the second gentleman. The front page of"—
    792
    one of the local papers—
    "was most damaging…. By saying tests were carried out at the bakery AFTER the second man had died, it implies that we were the cause of death. The facts were that the tests were carried out over a week ago, and from my understanding"—
    that is, a senior member of the firm—
    "the second man hadn't eaten a Chatwins product."
    It is important that we consider the series of events that affected Chatwins bakery. First, it was aware of its involvement only when it became clear that there was a problem. Secondly, I wrote directly to the head of the Food Standards Agency, as a constituency Member of Parliament, and as I would do with any transport question to a stand-alone agency, to inquire exactly what had happened, who was taking responsibility and whether the agency was aware of the impact on a particular firm. I think that I had every justification for doing so.
    The firm was not trying to shift blame in any way, nor did it run away from its responsibilities at any point, or do anything other than to accept that salmonella is an extremely dangerous disease for many people. Of course, the firm was so concerned that it was not passing on any form of infection to its customers that it undertook to do whatever was necessary.
    I received a silly letter back from the Food Standards Agency, which said in effect, "Don't speak to us. We're tremendously important. Speak only to the Under-Secretary". Frankly, it was such a bureaucratic and silly letter that I am sorry to say that I sent rather a nasty reply. I have been known occasionally to express myself with some vigour and in fairly straightforward English. I said:
    "Your inadequate, yet fastidiously bureaucratic response to my letter of 24th October arrived this morning. I think it might be helpful for me to remind you that I am a Member of Parliament, and that I wrote to the Chairman of the Food Standards Agency on behalf of one of my constituents, who felt that his business had suffered due to press releases issued by the Food Standards Agency. Given the foregoing, I expected a courteous and prompt reply from or on behalf of Sir John, ideally explaining how the FSA came to damage my constituent's reputation, perhaps apologising and maybe even offering some kind of amends.
    What I did not expect, and what I will not accept…is an irrelevant summary of the FSA's internal administrative procedures."
    Frankly, we must have some sense in this case.
    My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary then sent me a long reply in which she set out what the Department regarded as the official answer. I found that as worrying as some of my original contacts with the agency—for example, the fact that it stated:
    "Turning to the question of lack of evidence, the negative test results from Chatwins are not proof in themselves that the bakery did not supply food contaminated with salmonella."
    I am from a family that contains five doctors. I have the strange idea that a negative result to a test probably means that there is not infection there. Obviously, that is the view of an outsider.
    The letter from the Under-Secretary continued:
    "A detailed case control study undertaken by the Public Health Laboratory Service has provided clear statistical evidence implicating contaminated bakery items".
    Let us be clear what happened. There was a problem. When the bakery was made aware of the problem, those who ran it said that they were very concerned. They

    793
    co-operated with the environmental health officers in every possible way and were told that, at that point, because the results had not been obtained, the name of the bakery would not be used—and the next thing they knew was that they were all over the papers. It is not surprising that an announcement to the general public that there may be salmonella in cream buns has some effect on sales. I do not know why it happens—perhaps it shows how unimaginative customers are. Whatever the reason, the announcement had a direct and immediate effect.
    What happened then? Did we get any response or explanation from the FSA? Did we get even a gesture of apology—"We're sorry. We had no intention of damaging the business before we had the evidence to back it up."? Not at all. We got only a letter saying, in essence, "Well, tough. This is what we do, this is how we behave, and as far as we're concerned, you'd better get on with it." That is not good enough from a Government agency, not in this day and age and certainly not in the United Kingdom. I notice that today the FSA issued a press notice saying that the consumer would face considerable difficulties because expansion of the European Union will bring in many new countries that do not have the standards of food hygiene that we in the UK have. Perhaps so, but I note that the FSA made no recommendation on what to do about that; nor, as far as I can tell, did it use the same techniques as it used on a poor little baker in Nantwich, so I am not impressed.
    I have looked carefully, not only at the FSA's website, but at the vast number of reports it has turned out. Although the agency has been in existence for only a year, like many Government Departments it appears to advocate the turning out of a great deal of paper. Whoever else's friend the FSA is, it certainly is no friend of trees. The report states that the FSA wants to
    "earn people's trust by what we do and how we do it…. Although the FSA is a Government agency, it works at 'arm's length' from Government because it doesn't report to a specific minister"—
    oh, no? That is not what I was told in its long and boring epistle—
    "and is free to publish any advice it issues."
    Under the heading "Who is the FSA accountable to?" it declares, "We're accountable to Parliament"—well, that is me. I am Parliament. I am Crewe and Nantwich in this place and I have something to say about the way in which the FSA behaves. The report adds that the FSA is also accountable to the devolved Administrations.
    The report contains some interesting facts. I found, much to my astonishment, that the FSA has three parts, but the second biggest, which is almost as big as the part that does the job that the FSA is supposed to do, is the bit that deals with both legal matters and communications. Indeed, that part's budget spending is almost as big as that of the part that monitors health. I am sure that that is a sign of the FSA's efficiency and its desire to spread information around, but that is not what it looks like.
    We in this place have a special responsibility. No one representing any constituency in the United Kingdom does anything other than support public health. I have
    794
    spent my entire life battling against those who want to smoke, insisting on better conditions for people in poor accommodation, and doing what I can to improve public health generally and the quality of life enjoyed by the people of this country. We must remember occasionally that Government Departments exist because the electorate want them to exist, but the powers that we give them in legislation passed in this Chamber must be used responsibly and sensibly. What they must not do—this group of people who, despite having studied them extremely closely, I do not recognise at all—is take unto themselves the powers of economic life and death by failing to understand what they, by making public a set of circumstances before they are absolutely sure of the facts, can achieve without any real thought.
    I am concerned about the way in which the Food Standards Agency has behaved in the case I have described. I am concerned because if a firm is at risk, the least it has the right to expect is a responsible attitude on the part of those with whom it is dealing. If it is being open, not making any difficulty for the environmental health officers and seeking to protect its interests, but not doing so in a way that damages the interests of customers, it has the right to expect that a Government agency will at least consult it and talk to it, and not through a sudden blaze of information and openness that might be considered essential but will do something to ruin the business.
    It is because the firm is well known that it is beginning to recover. It has a good reputation. The people concerned will continue to be extremely successful bakers and they will give much pleasure to my constitutents. They will do even more damage to my hips in future.
    The reality is that the House does not frame legislation for those who are bureaucrats or people who are outwith the economic situation, who are not answerable in real terms to the House. The House does not give them powers to exercise without care and without thought, and with astonishingly little awareness of the impact of their behaviour. These people must learn that they are there because we give them powers and because we want them to exercise control. The next time that they want to say that there is a real responsibility and a real problem in public health such as the expansion of the European Union, which will involve taking in the products of many more firms when we have no evidence that they will comply with our food laws, they should say what they will do and not spend all their time seeking to cause enormous problems for others who have no way of hitting back.
    7.31 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): Iam genuinely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Crew and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) for raising this issue. As she has said, we have been in correspondence. It is important that we try to reflect on public health issues, how they are handled and how we get the right balances between openness and transparency while being sensitive to the important issues that she has raised about the local business in her constituency.
    I am delighted that my hon. Friend has given her deep and genuine support for measures that have been taken to protect public health in this country, and has

    795
    acknowledged how important that process is. She makes the point that the actions of agencies in this sensitive area must be defended and have the consent and support of the public. They are more effective agencies if they have that backing from the community at large.
    I hope to be able to address some of my hon. Friend's concerns. I am sure that at the end of what I have to say she will remain disturbed about the effect on the business in her constituency. However, I shall do my best to outline how the Food Standards Agency reached the decision that it did and the balance that it drew between a series of competing interests in this instance.
    It is important to remember that this was a serious outbreak of infection. The Public Health Laboratory Service has described as unprecedented the series of outbreaks of salmonella infection that have taken place recently. Many of them have involved unusual strains of the bacterium, and many have shown an association with eggs.
    Salmonella is a fairly serious infection. It causes diarrhoea, fever, vomiting and severe stomach pain lasting up to three weeks. In some cases it can cause peritonitis or blood poisoning, and occasionally it can be fatal. Almost 1,000 people have become ill in 18 recent outbreaks, and there have been at least two deaths. This is far above the normal reported levels of salmonella that we would expect.
    The first evidence of a real problem emerged towards the end of September, with the reporting of an increased number of cases due to an unusual strain of salmonella, which was enteritidis type 14b. Cases initially occurred mainly in London and the south-east, with a cluster of cases in Basingstoke. However, within about a week, cases were beginning to be reported in the north-west, from the Sandbach area, around my hon. Friend's constituency. Local public health officials investigated that cluster of cases. They went to see the people who had been infected. They had with them a lengthy questionnaire. They asked people where they had recently bought products, what sort of products they had been eating and where they had travelled.. They tried to obtain information about where the infections might be originating from.
    The local public health officials who were carrying out the investigation identified products from two bakery chains as a common link between the cases. This was subsequently confirmed in a study carried out by the Public Health Laboratory Service.
    The bakeries are in different parts of the country—one is in the south-east and the other is in the north-west—so investigations concentrated on what they had in common, which proved to be a common source of supply of eggs. When the bakeries were visited, it was discovered that both were using pasteurised eggs, as recommended, but both were also using ordinary shell eggs. In the bakery in the north-west— the one in my hon. Friend's constituency—fondant icing was being made with raw eggs. So in addition to clear evidence of people who ate products from the bakery becoming sick, there was also a clear risk that salmonella could be present in the fondant icing, because it was made from raw eggs. Advice was immediately given to the bakery that it should stop using raw eggs in this way, which it indeed followed. As my hon. Friend said, it co-operated with the environmental health office officials involved.
    796
    After the bakery acted on that advice, there was a rapid fall in the number of cases occurring in the north-west, with an eventual total of 96 cases and one death owing to the outbreak.
    The investigations highlighted a problem in the way in which commercial food businesses such as bakeries were using or handling eggs. They did not seem to be aware of the longstanding advice that raw eggs should not be used in foods that will not be cooked before being eaten, or that there is a risk of cross-contamination in kitchens where eggs are handled. As the investigation proceeded and eggs supplied to the businesses were tested, it became apparent that some of the eggs used had very high rates of salmonella contamination. The vast majority of those eggs, although not all of them, had come from Spain.
    In view of my hon. Friend's tremendous personal support for public health issues, I am sure that she will agree that an outbreak such as this does require that action be taken swiftly by the Food Standards Agency. It has a remit to protect public health, and it was clear that public health was being seriously affected by these outbreaks. A picture emerged of a problem with food hygiene practice in the use of eggs, and with Spanish eggs in particular.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Forgive me—I know that I should not interrupt my hon. Friend. Is she about to tell me that the Spanish provider of these eggs has been prosecuted?
    Ms Blears: No, and as I understand it, nor has the bakery in my hon. Friend's constituency. It has been given advice by the relevant officials, which it has followed.
    The FSA has reiterated its advice to businesses through various press releases. It has raised the concern about Spanish eggs with its counterpart in Spain, and it has reported the matter to the European Commission. The FSA is not the body that would prosecute in these circumstances. It has also issued advice to egg importers and wholesalers that all Spanish eggs should be heat-treated before use. So action has been taken on the Spanish eggs that seem to have caused the problem.
    On the naming of this bakery—Chatwins—it is my understanding that it was not in fact named in the press release that was issued by the FSA. I have been supplied with a copy of it, and it states:
    "Efforts have been made to identify the source or sources of the outbreaks by local Environmental Health Officers and the Public Health Laboratory Service, centring on London and Cheshire. This work is still underway. A common thread in both outbreaks relates to the use and handling of ordinary eggs by a local food business in each of the outbreak areas."
    It further states:
    "In Cheshire, a bakery was using ordinary eggs in products that were not cooked."
    That is a fact, and the bakery has acknowledged that and has since changed its practice. However, neither bakery was named in that press release. My understanding is that, after the press release was issued, further inquiries were inevitably made by the media to try to find out where the companies were based. It was at that point that the FSA considered this matter carefully,

    797
    and it decided that the interests of the individual businesses did not outweigh the public interest in making that information available to them.
    I am told that that decision was not taken in a cavalier fashion, without regard to the interests of the businesses concerned; indeed, those interests were a very relevant consideration for the FSA. However, it does have a code of openness in terms of its operation. If my hon. Friend casts her mind back, she will remember that the FSA was established at a time when public trust in food production, manufacture and sale was almost at an all-time low. People were becoming increasingly concerned that they could not rely on the information that was available about their food. I understand that since the establishment of the Food Standards Agency, which has openness as a key plank of its operation, the proportion of the public who have confidence in information about their food has risen from about 25 per cent. to about 50 per cent. Some 50 per cent. now feel that they can rely on the food information that is provided by the FSA. Public confidence is very important and openness clearly plays a role in that respect. Equally, that needs to be weighed against the interests of businesses and commercial operations and the effect that statements could have on them.
    I am informed that those considerations were taken into account at the highest level in the Food Standards Agency and that the decision was reached that the businesses would be named in response to further media inquiries. When they were named, however, the media were made well aware that each had co-operated fully with the Food Standards Agency and local environmental health officers. This was not a case in which a local business was seeking to avoid its responsibility, as was made clear at the time.
    My hon. Friend has given us an opportunity to consider afresh some of the issues that she raised and to look at the way in which such decisions are made and the balance between the competing interests of openness and the commercial considerations of the businesses concerned, and I am grateful to her for doing so.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Is the Minister also considering the way in which the Food Standards Agency responded in this case? Will she issue guidelines stating that when a Member of Parliament writes to it about a matter, it should ensure that they get a proper and full response?
    Ms Blears: I sign an awful lot of correspondence from the Food Standards Agency and it is certainly my experience that when Members of Parliament contact it, an immediate response is given. That usually happens through me, as I am accountable to Parliament for the agency's actions. In my experience, the issues raised by Members of Parliament are treated with seriousness and are certainly not dismissed. I would be very concerned if any Member of Parliament thought that the agency was not taking the matters that they raised extremely seriously indeed. As my hon. Friend said, Members of Parliament give agencies powers, so it is right that those agencies should respond properly, promptly and in considered detail to the issues that they raise. I shall certainly undertake to monitor that issue in my dealings with the agency.
    798
    One aspect of the way in which the case was dealt with has caused me concern. I understand that the business was not informed by the Food Standards Agency that it could be named in response to the further inquiries. It was not named in the press release, but if there is to be openness for all the parties involved in such a case, people should be informed if that is likely to happen or if there is any such intention so that they are apprised of the full facts. In this case, as I understand it, it was only when the business contacted the FSA that it found out that it had been named. I think that the FSA may have a responsibility to be more proactive in letting people know how a case may pan out. I shall take up that issue with the agency.
    My hon. Friend raised another important issue in saying that I had stated in my letter that negative tests do not necessarily show that there is no infection. I stand by that statement. I understand that microbiological samples are often taken some time after the contamination that led to an infection has occurred. If there is a time lapse, the microbiological evidence may well have come and gone by the time that samples are taken, so the fact that there are negative tests does not necessarily mean that a particular location was not the source of the contamination that led to the infection. I ask her to consider that the fact that the tests are negative does not automatically mean that there has been no infection. Certainly, the use of raw eggs at the bakery in products that were not going to be cooked was against longstanding Government advice, and I am delighted that the company has now changed its process.
    The FSA has done everything that it can to reiterate its advice to food businesses. It is longstanding advice and it is important that all companies be made aware of it. The agency has produced a leaflet targeted at caterers and has produced 400,000 copies for distribution throughout the country, so it has certainly tried to ensure that it gets the message across in order to protect the public's health. The agency has a responsibility to consider the evidence and act appropriately. In this case, the evidence showed that raw eggs were not always being used or handled properly by caterers, and it may be too easy to forget that a raw egg poses a health risk, which is important particularly for vulnerable members of the community such as the elderly, pregnant women and young children.
    In this case it was the genuine intention of the FSA to try to balance the competing interests of openness and transparency and of the business concerned. I understand that the business has followed the advice that was issued and that, happily, the infections have abated considerably. This was an important matter and I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised the issue in Parliament in the way that she has. I undertake to consider the points that she has made to see if there is any more general application in this case.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Eight o 'clock.

Preamble
[MR. FRANK COOK in the Chair]

2001 Census in Manchester
Motion made, and Question proposed That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.]
9.30 am
Mr. Keith Bradley: We meet this morning in very sad circumstances.
Mr. Graham Stringer: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Bradley: Of course.
Mr. Stringer: I thank my right hon. Friend and you, Mr. Cook, for that indulgence. I should like to take this opportunity, the first that I have had, to offer my condolences to the family of Stephen Oake, who was murdered in my constituency last night, while doing his duty as a constable in the special branch. I also hope that the other offices who were injured in the line of duty make a speedy recovery.
Mr. Bradley: I am sure that the whole House shares those sentiments. We all send our condolence to the family of Stephen Oake.
The debate this morning is to challenge the accuracy of the 2001 national census as it applies to the city of Manchester, to highlight the financial implications of the discrepancy for the people of Manchester and to seek urgent action by the Government to resolve the fundamental and crucial problems that we believe should be clearly identified.
Manchester is one of the country's foremost regional centres and it has made great strides over the past few years to strengthen its economic base. Its success is important not only for the people of Manchester but for the north-west and the nation. Government policies over recent years have recognised that fact.
The 2001 census results published on 30 September by the Office for National Statistics showed Manchester to have a population of 392,800. That is a reduction of 10.4 per cent.—nearly 46,000 people—in Manchester's population between 1991, when the previous census was held, and 2001. It is a reduction of 10.6 per cent.—nearly 47,000 people—in Manchester's population for the nine-month period from the mid-year estimate in 2000 to the 2001 census.
In Manchester, we were, to say the least, utterly bewildered by these figures. During the 1990s, our city centre population increased by nearly 10,000. Mid-year estimates throughout the 1990s indicated that the city's population had stabilised and had started to grow. So the question is; how can these wide variances be justified?
We are told by the ONS that, in Manchester and elsewhere, previously unrecorded discrepancies going back nearly 20 years have flawed the 1991 census and the
250WH
mid-year estimates since then. The ONS has speculated that the rate of young men in particular emigrating from England was previously underestimated by some 50,000 a year; nearly 1,000 a week. However, this trend has not been substantiated or picked up by alternative sources, including the international passenger survey. Therefore, in our view, it is not credible.
The view of the ONS will be debated by statisticians for years to come, but the issue for the people of Manchester is not an academic exercise. We want to know why the administrative sources available to us and to the ONS showed that the census results from Manchester seriously underestimate Manchester's population. We also want to understand why Manchester's residents are being penalised for these fundamental weaknesses and why serious questions must be asked in Manchester as the revenue budget for 2003–04 is prepared.
Manchester city council is a responsible local authority. It has sought, since the publication of the 2001 results, to enter into a detailed dialogue with the ONS to understand the rationale of its population figures. The initial signs were positive. The chief statistician went to Manchester and met council officers; they agreed a process of what I will call engagement. However, the outcome of these discussions remains as unclear and as worrying for the residents of Manchester as when the figures were first published.
It has taken nearly three months to obtain the information necessary to undertake even partial scrutiny of the results. Critical pieces of information are still awaited. For example, the aggregate general practitioner list data are not yet available. The ONS states that it needs the permission of the NHS security and confidentiality advisory group to release the information. We ask the Government to look at this urgently to facilitate that information being made available to Manchester soon.
A new aspect of the 2001 census was an independent follow-up face-to-face census coverage survey. In order to check the representative nature of this survey and the sample that was used, we need to see whether the survey missed households. We need to know the total number of addresses or household spaces and households in each postcode unit. We need to know the total number of addresses of household spaces and households responding in each postcode. We need to know the number of persons enumerated and inputted for each of the postcodes used in that survey. The ONS says that by releasing the postcodes sampled in the census coverage survey it effectively would be releasing information about the households and individuals sampled. We dispute that and request that the Minister intervene quickly to allow that information to be released to Manchester city council so that it can check the validity of the sample survey. What information has been produced demonstrates that the number of people who live in Manchester is underestimated by the 2001 census.
No substantive reasons have been given as to why alternative administrative sources have been disregarded by the ONS, which was always seen to be part of the quality assurance process and therefore the overall census methodology. I shall return to this point shortly.

251WH
Crucially, it has also come to light that something like 10,000 properties that the council believes to be occupied, as council tax is being paid, were not canvassed or identified by census enumerators. We strongly believe that if people are paying council tax in the city, they may actually live in the city. We believe that unless we have an accurate property base, we cannot produce an accurate population estimate, irrespective of the competence or otherwise of the ONS.
The city council has asked the ONS to undertake a match between its own property base and that identified by the census. That would at least assist in identifying the differences and therefore those properties that appear to have been missed. That seems a reasonable request and I should have thought that this exercise was quite straightforward. I am afraid that that is not the case. The city council was first told that the ONS had resource difficulties that make such an exercise very difficult in the short term. It was also told that the ONS had additional information requirements, which we believe can be quickly met but are delaying the process. When the city council suggested that an independent specialist agency should undertake the work as agent for ONS, problems of confidentiality were again raised, and these are apparently still being considered. This needs to be resolved as a matter of urgency so that we can test the validity of the property base.
I return to the issue of quality assurance and alternative data sources. The ONS has given Manchester—in confidence, obviously—the child benefit data used for the quality assurance process, which show that there are more children receiving child benefit in the data used by the ONS than were found by the one-number census or the mid-year estimate. It is clear that there has been a miscount. Moreover, the pensions data used for the quality assurance process—again, supplied in confidence—show more people in the 65 to 79 age group in receipt of pensions than were found by the one-number census or the mid-year estimate. That supports our argument that the statistics need to be validated.
It was interesting that in oral questions on Monday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said, with reference to pensioner figures:
"The ONS conducted a review of the statistics, and I think it wise to treat all pensions statistics with caution until that review has been fully implemented."—[Official Report, 13 January 2003; Vol. 397, c. 404.]
We concur with that, as it reinforces our case for a review of the data on the number of pensioners in Manchester.
The school census data used for the quality assurance process and supplied in confidence show more children aged five to nine and 10 to 14 in the school census than in the 2001 mid-year estimate, further reinforcing the point that when brought together, independent sources show a greater population in the city of Manchester than was shown by the 2001 census.
Similarly, the electoral register in Manchester shows an increase from 310,010 in 2001–02 to 313,573 in 2002–03. The census results for Manchester indicate that the city's total population aged 17 or more was 305,193. The electoral register figure was 4,817 higher
252WH
than the estimate. If people are registering to vote in Manchester and, as I said earlier, paying council tax, that strengthens the argument that the census underestimated the numbers.
The quality assurance process was a key part of the ONS methodology, which was extensively consulted on by the ONS before the census was undertaken. The issue is not the principle of the process, but how it has been applied and, in Manchester's case, why the information has been ignored. The information given by the ONS shows as a recurring theme for Manchester that there are more people living in the city than were projected in the census results. We need to know the possible reasons why there are more children in receipt of benefit, more children in Manchester schools and more people in receipt of pensions than the census shows. The comparisons with the electoral register and the flaws identified in the ONS property base mean that the census results for Manchester have no credibility.
Mr. David Kidney: Does my right hon. Friend intend to deal with Manchester's status as a university town? Is he aware that Manchester is not alone in being an apparently thriving area, but having a reduced census figure? Other cities with a similar complaint include Cambridge, Oxford, Bristol, Nottingham and Stafford. Although not everyone may know of Stafford's status as a university town it is one—the others are well known. Is that a factor in my right hon. Friend's considerations?
Mr. Bradley: Yes. The large number of students in the city is an added factor; a complicating factor, because that is such a mobile population which, to be fair to the census enumerators, caused some difficulty in the count. That is why I have avoided using that as a key indicator of the reduced population, and have instead used data that are easy to substantiate from alternative sources. The student population is certainly another factor that has not been taken properly into account or counted as part of the overall population figure. The examples that my hon. Friend gave of similar situations in other towns with a high student population reinforces the argument for re-examining the census data and the extent to which the population has been underestimated.
Mr. Bob Laxton: I endorse my right hon. Friend's comments. Derby is also affected by a huge reduction in population—about 14,500, according to the ONS—and is also a university town, which must be factored in. My right hon. Friend may be interested to know that I have been contacted by two former employees of the ONS data centre in Widnes, who told me that gross errors were made in the processing of the data, that the optical character reading of the forms was, in many cases, gibberish and unintelligible and that there were huge pressures on the operatives in the data processing centre in Widnes to increase their hourly key strokes to a very high level. That was achieved by cheating; by people holding their fingers on keyboards and blasting through screens to try to get their key stroke figures up. Those two individuals, who have asked to remain anonymous as they are clearly whistleblowers, pointed out forcefully to me that there will be huge distortions and errors around the country

253WH
as a result of the ineffective and inefficient way in which the data processing centre at Widnes, which was the only one handling the census details, operated.
Mr. Bradley: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, which brings me to my next point. Whatever is said about the ability of the ONS to count, as an organisation it does not transmit an image of public accountability and responsiveness. We need to consider that carefully as a crucial issue, on which I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will want to comment. While it prevaricates or fails to substantiate its decision-making for the results in Manchester and other cities around the country, as we hear, the decisions crucially feed into the rate support grant settlement for the coming financial year, which has been announced by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. We believe that in Manchester we would have lost more than£18 million worth of grant if the figures had been applied to the financial year 2002–03. I shall deal with the current year in a moment.
Such reductions are untenable in the light of what we believe to be the fundamental flaws in the census results and the grossly unfair impact that such reductions in grant will have on the people of Manchester, which is by no stretch of the imagination a wealthy community. It has many areas of poverty and deprivation that can ill afford any reduction in grant. We must address that issue urgently.
In Manchester, we all want to understand why the Government appear to be unwilling to scrutinise the results of the census and satisfy themselves that their resource allocation policies are a fair and accurate reflection of needs across the board. If the Government decide to use the ONS results, they are, by implication, telling everyone that they accept, at least for the time being, the adequacy of the information that has been supplied by the census. That is totally unacceptable. We also want to understand what steps the Government will take to make the ONS more responsible and accountable. The Government have rightly placed public service reform at the heart of the modernisation programme, but the ONS has clearly missed out in that process. The Government must urgently address that point.
We also want to urge my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to examine the evidence that we are placing before her in this debate and to arrange an urgent meeting with Manchester Members of Parliament, the leader of the city council and other key players as soon as possible. As I have already made clear, we would lose £18 million under this year's rate support grant settlement and, under next year's settlement, we are again likely to lose millions of pounds. The settlement and the way in which it is now calculated rely heavily on the population of the city, so unless we get the figure for the population right, we will lose millions of pounds of grant. The city can ill afford that.
Unless we make an urgent reappraisal of the population of Manchester so that we can determine the true figure of grant that should go to the city from 1 April 2003, we shall perpetuate the problem in years to come. Unless we get the baseline right now, the loss of money will be rolled forward in whatever adjustments are used in mid-year estimates or future surveys. There is no sign that the Government will compensate us even if they find at a later stage that the figures are inaccurate in the way that I have suggested.
254WH
Immense difficulties have been created for the budgeting process in Manchester. Determining what can be made available under a grant based on erroneous population figures means that services may have to be reduced to meet the reduced grant. That is totally unacceptable to a city such as Manchester that relies heavily on crucial education, social and other services. Any unjustified reduction for the city will be unacceptable to its Members of Parliament and population.
I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to consider carefully the alternative data sources and to examine the validity of the arguments that my colleagues and I will make in this debate. I urge her to take quickly the view that the census figures are flawed and that they underestimate the population of Manchester. She must be certain that the rate support grant settlement from 1 April reflects the city's true population and the true needs of its residents.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Frank Cook (In the Chair): Order. Some Members may not be familiar with the conventions of this Chamber, so I remind them that we begin the first of the three wind-up speeches 30 minutes before the end of the debate. We therefore have until 10.30 am for the general debate. I ask Members to bear that point in mind and to make their remarks pertinent. Will they bear it in mind particularly when they take interventions? Lengthy interventions will not be favoured.
9.54 am
Mr. Tony Lloyd: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) on his remarks. He has laid out in a detailed manner the grievances of the people of Manchester. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and not another Minister is present for this debate; she is probably sorry to be here too. One thing that the ONS could do is calculate the distances from a Minister of the Members complaining. That would provide a serious measure of the ice or warmth in any relationship.
We come to this debate with a strong sense of grievance. I am aware of many occasions when Members have been responsible for special pleading, but I do not think that this is a case of special pleading. There is a genuine sense that the ONS has made a complete mess of the census results at least in Manchester and—quite possibly, given the anecdotal evidence—elsewhere.
On my point that it might have been better had a different Minister attended the debate, our essential grievance is that an erroneous census matters because the Government will deprive Manchester of many resources as a result. The people of the city—it is still one of our poorer communities, despite the enormous progress that has been made in recent years—simply cannot afford the Government to make decisions about resourcing on the basis of an erroneous census.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington has given a detailed description of the doubt and uncertainty. In fact, the problem is more than one

255WH
of doubt and certainty; there are clear signs of a lack of credibility in the census process. I shall illustrate that point by making a few anecdotal observations. A friend of mine was a manager in the census process and he told me of the way in which it was mishandled. For example, the people in one inner-city area of Manchester are not particularly used, for all manner of reasons, to regular form filling. My right hon. and hon. Friends from Manchester know that the ethnic mix in that area is enormous and that a great many languages are regularly spoken. The consequence is that English is not always the language that is first used.
My friend told me that he had encountered about a 100 nationalities in his work. Somalians are now a significant group in my constituency and in those of some of my hon. Friends. However, because of the employment rules, my friend was not able to employ anyone from a Somalian background. That restricted the number of census enumerators able to work in the Somalian language and to determine whether the form returned from a particular household was accurate to any degree. Such details might seem trivial were it not for the fact that they are part of a systematic pattern of doubtful competence.
My friend made a further point that is relevant to the position of students. He told me that people employed by the census physically delivered the forms, but that they were returned by the Post Office. He made the obvious point that the system would have been far more credible if the Post Office—which generally tends to know where people are because it regularly delivers the post to them—had delivered the census forms and the enumerators had collected them. Although it was not the Post Office's fault, it took about two weeks for the forms to begin to be returned and it was only at that point that the enumerators could get out on to the streets to deal with the problems caused by missing forms.
My friend told me that he knew of at least one street in which not a single door was opened when the census enumerators returned. He did not know whether anyone lived in those houses. We have to face up to the fact that it is possible that no one lived in them and that a nil return was accurate. However, it is also possible that many of those houses were students' houses, because the process took place when the students were already returning to their parental homes or were involved in examinations. They may have been reluctant to open the doors. Again, that might seem a trivial point, but the number of students in Manchester is enough to make a whole constituency. An enormous number of them live in the city; we have the biggest concentration of students in western Europe in a small area. Therefore, if the way in which the student population has been accounted for contains a systematic error, it will make a significant difference to the overall census.
I know that there are other problems in determining a student's real residence. However, not all students should be reallocated to the home from which they came. Lifestyles are different these days, and many students are permanently resident in the town where they study. My points may seem trivial and anecdotal, but they illustrate the sloppiness and incompetence that ran through the whole census process.
256WH
Fairly senior people working on the census were seriously unhappy about the process, and felt that they did not receive an adequate response from line managers in the ONS. The real charge against the ONS is that it was not fit to carry out the national census. That is an extremely serious charge, but it must be made. I know that you are a traditionalist on such matters, Mr. Cook, but if the census in Bethlehem had been conducted in such an illegitimate fashion, the whole of Christendom would have been remarkably different in the past 2000 years. That illustrates the scale of the problem.
I also want to comment briefly on some of the important points that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington has made. If the quality control system and the existence of a number of significant variables—child benefit, pensions and the school register—suggest that there are more people in certain categories than the census allows for and if every alternative indicator shows that the census has got things materially wrong and has underestimated the figures, it is bizarre for the ONS to decide to reject the quality control process. Instead, the ONS has insisted that it got it right in the first place. Common sense says that we should be prudent; that is a good Treasury term. Although we might accept that the census has not made a complete idiot of itself, there is a strong suggestion that it may have done that. We should seriously examine the ONS data.
My right hon. Friend has pointed out that Manchester feels that it has been blocked when it has tried to carry forward the debate. The ONS has not made available the information that the city needs. I despair of a retreat into an argument that is based on data protection. I agree that it would be outrageous for the ONS to give details about individual children and pensioners—of course, that would be illegitimate—but the provision of aggregate figures falls well within Parliament's intentions on the right to public confidentiality. We are talking about the protection of the ONS's confidentiality so that it can protect itself from the charge of gross incompetence. However, we are making that charge anyway, so it might has well come clean, own up and say, "Yes, we have probably got it wrong. Let us begin to talk seriously about the figures and the database." That would enable it to convince the public and the people of Manchester that it has got things right.
I understand the position of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary. She will have received a briefing from her civil servants, but I am sure that she has already thought about the issues. It is not her first exposure to the problems that we have outlined, and I appeal to her sense of justice. The census matters because it is a once-in-a-while account of the population, and we need to know the national trends on the structure of the population and the data on matters such as ethnicity and gender. However, it also matters enormously because of its redistributive effect. It would be a bizarre consequence if a Labour Government, of all Governments, took part in a process that allowed an incompetent census to redistribute resources from one of the poorest communities in the country to those who are generally better off. We have no business being involved that.
My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary must assure us that there is a way of resolving our doubts about the ONS's competence and that a process will examine that

257WH
point. We must also know that if the ONS is found to have been negligent, there will be proper recompense: my right hon. Friend has already made that point. It is no good saying—as happened in the past when Manchester lost money from previous Governments—that the loss will be made up in the future. That never happens and you know that as well as anyone Mr. Cook. Money is never made up. If the census is found to be inadequate, we want a guarantee that there will be proper and adequate compensation.
Perhaps the real point is that we should wean ourselves off the big-bang view that the census will determine all local government spending. If things go wrong, the process becomes incompetent. Even if it can be demonstrated that the census is absolutely right—I do not believe that that can be done—it is impossible to say to a community such as Manchester that it can afford to lose at the levels that my right hon. Friend has described. We need assurances that our points will be examined in a way that provides proper justice to the people of Manchester.
10.6 am
Mr. Graham Stringer: My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) have enabled me to make my remarks relatively brief. They have comprehensively covered the inadequacies and inaccuracies of the 2001 census. However, I make it clear to you, Mr. Cook, that when I refer to a Mr. Cook of the ONS—some of my criticisms will be sharp because I am not one of his admirers—I am not undermining your position. I do not want there to be such a misunderstanding.
Since I have become aware of the problems in the 2001 census, I have tried to find out as much as I possibly can about the operation of the ONS and the census. On 28 October 2002, I went to a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee to watch it question M r. Cook. It was a painful and revealing experience that shed light on why the census does not contain figures on which we can rely. At first, I thought that Mr. Cook just could not count up to 60 million. It is a large figure. However, he also has problems with other figures, statistical projections, administering the organisation and morale. I shall quickly go through the points that the Public Accounts Committee brought to light.
There is a limit of £20,000 on the letting of contracts in the ONS. However, the consultant firm, Vogue, spent nearly £1 million without going through the proper procedures. I remember from the arithmetic that I studied that there is a big difference between £20,000 and £1 million. Even after Mr. Cook initially checked the figures, he failed to detect that one of his officers had let a contract of £500,000, which led to £1 million of extra expenditure, to one of that officer's mates. The official lost a bonus of 4 per cent. but then received a bonus of 8 per cent. Therefore, he did not lose out, and he left the organisation without any penalties imposed on him. That did not reassure me that things were being carried out correctly.
One would expect a national statistician to come up with a correct estimate of the number of census forms that would be returned. He estimated that 70 per cent.
258WH
of the forms would be returned. In fact, 88 per cent. were returned. Having got that wrong, one might suspect that it would make things easier, but it did not. Instead, the people who should have been checking up on those who had not returned their forms were kept in the office to sort out the forms that had been sent back. He also estimated that there would be 600,000 phone calls. Wrong again, Mr. Len Cook; there were 2.6 million calls, more than half of which went unanswered.
In addition, 30 per cent. of the 70,000 or so staff employed were not paid for a considerable time. Chessington, which was responsible for making the payments, ended up overpaying them by £500,000. Mr. Cook could not get the money back because he could not provide the statistics and information to Chessington to allow him to do that. In the light of that background of comprehensive incompetence in the ONS, it should come as no surprise that the figures do not match our expectation and knowledge of what is happening on the ground.
Mr. Cook estimates that 1 million people did not return the forms, so he is 2 million short. How many people were prosecuted for that? A mere 39. We must consider how effective the incentive was to persuade people to return the forms, although as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central said, they were not delivered to many people because the normal postal service was not used. The 39 who were prosecuted were honest people. They did not agree with the census and told Mr. Cook that they were not filling in his form. For that, they were prosecuted. The 1 million people who did not fill them in because they wanted to dodge something in the system or were just too lazy to do so were not prosecuted. That is a strange way of ensuring an accurate census.
As I have become more and more interested in the ONS, I have started to collect paper cuttings. Almost daily I see it retract information and I see people complaining about it. The latest complaint is that Mr. Cook has double-counted pension funds. He has counted the transfer of pension funds as new contributions to pensions, which gives a double estimate of people's savings in pensions. That is not a man who is doing a job properly. Professor Coleman is professor of demography at Oxford university and a professional in the sector. He simply cannot credit that 1,000 young men a week—1 million in all—have left the country to go to Ibiza to enjoy discos or whatever.
Mr. Lloyd: All of them from Manchester.
Mr. Stringer: Quite. It just is not credible and no other source of information supports that evidence.
Right hon. and hon. Friends have asked for a correlation between other sources of information. More people are paying council tax than are accounted for in the census for Manchester. Manchester people are very honest, but they are not paying council tax on behalf of imaginary people. There are more pupils, more pensioners and more voters than Mr. Cook accounts for in the census. It is more likely that he has got it wrong because the people who went to collect the forms were frightened of going into certain parts of Manchester, probably unreasonably. They did not know the area. Students who had temporarily left the city and people who were dodging the council tax by not registering on the electoral register did not appear on the census.

259WH
All the sources from city council underestimate the figures. It is possible that people saw the forms but did not want to fill them in. Recent asylum seekers who have the right to stay here were probably worried about them. The common factors in all areas where the population has been underestimated are large ethnic minority populations, large student populations and, in some cases, poor populations, which has an effect because the second person in the household does not register.
My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary was decent enough to meet Manchester MPs at short notice. I ask her to look thoroughly at the census. I understand that she cannot put herself in the place of the officer of national statistics. I accept that the Government must have an independent source of information with which they do not interfere, but that does not mean that they should not take seriously our concerns that Mr. Cook has got it wrong and has done an extraordinarily bad job. The Government cannot rely on the information in the census when they plan future services. Cities such as Manchester do not like some of the services that they provide to be based on population because they are not related to the number of people in the population. The census would distort that further.
Mr. Cook has managed to make more people disappear from Manchester than General Galtieri ever managed to make disappear from Argentina. Although he has not had the same tragic consequences, there will be other tragic consequences for services if the census is not reviewed. It is the worst census for 200 years.
10.17 am
Paul Goggins: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) on obtaining this timely and important debate, and other colleagues on their forceful arguments. No one could argue that Manchester lacks leadership and determination. We are certainly not a city that whinges about what other people do to us, or what happened in the past. The city is increasingly successful. We continue to combine, as we have over the centuries, the quest for economic progress with a commitment to fairness.
Last Saturday, I went to a concert in the Bridgewater hall, which is a world- renowned facility. Next season, I will support my football team in the new 50,000-seater City of Manchester stadium, the centrepiece of the Commonwealth games that grabbed the nation's attention last summer. It also showed that the regions can lead successful national and international events. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) said, Manchester's universities are among the finest in Europe. The metrolink system is doing well and is about to be extended to bring world-class public transport to our constituents. While the rest of the country was consulting—or not consulting, as it turns out—on the future of aviation, Manchester airport in my constituency, with two runways and three terminals, continued to deal with its 19 million passengers a year, which will double over the next 30 years.
All those successes and many others that I do not have time to mention have been achieved by a city that punches well above its weight in terms of its population.
260WH
I will not use the census figures because I concur with my right hon. and hon. Friends on their reliability, but in the mid-year estimates for 2000, Manchester had 440,000 people, Leeds had 726,000 and Birmingham around 1 million. So there are far fewer people in our city than there are in others. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) said, many of our citizens are relatively poor. Indeed, about half rely on some form of means-tested benefit.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have argued forcefully that the census is a travesty, with 46,000 fewer people than the 1991 census and 47,000 fewer than the 2000 mid-year estimates. As I go around the city, I see new businesses rising up and new homes being built. So common sense tells us that the census cannot be true. My constituency experience also tells me the same thing.
I hope hon. Members forgive me for taking a little time to share facts about my constituency. When the boundary changed in 1993, about 3,200 people who were previously in the city of Manchester were moved out of it. They did not move away. Someone just drew a line on a different place on the map. Since 1997, however, because of new investment in housing and the growth of owner-occupation, 3,000 people have moved into Wythenshawe. At the same time, some buildings have been demolished and probably about 1,500 people have moved out. That process over the past few years has meant two things; an extra 1,500 people are living in Wythenshawe and about 1,700 fewer people are living in Manchester. There has been a small reduction in the population, which perhaps even the city council could accept. However, the reduction is considerably less than the 11 per cent. suggested by the census.
If my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary is not persuaded by the common-sense observations or the details of my constituency, I hope that she will be swayed by the information provided by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington and other colleagues on the statistic provided by the city council on the missing 10,000 properties on which council tax is being paid. The ONS evaluation report observes:
"there is real evidence that the interviewers found whole properties that were missing from other address lists during their on-the-ground property listing phase".
Let me translate the jargon. That means that properties and people that do not exist in the virtual world of the census do exist in the real world of the city of Manchester. The city's own evidence shows that there are more pensioners, more children and 5,000 more adults are on the electoral register than the census shows. It is not good enough for Mr. Cook to say that all previous surveys have been wrong or that 1,000 people a week are leaving for sunnier climes. The evidence simply is not there.
As we heard, Manchester is not alone. According to the census, Westminster has lost a quarter of its population. Kensington and Chelsea, Cambridge, and Oxford have also lost considerable numbers. Again according to the census, there has been a fall in the population of every one of the 10 districts in Greater Manchester. A third of my constituency covers the borough of Trafford, which is supposed to have lost 10,000 people from its population; about 5 per cent. of the total. Altogether, Greater Manchester is supposed

261WH
to have lost more than 100,000 people. Again, that cannot possibly be true according to common sense or the data.
All of that would be interesting were it simply an academic debate, but population totals mean hard cash. Manchester is set to lose millions of pounds over the next decade if we continue to rely on the figures in the census. For the current year, that would have meant a loss of more than £18 million. We are told that there is some protection for next year because of the capping that would limit the loss to £8.2 million, but that is considerable in terms of the amount of resources that would be lost to the city. Who knows what might happen? The protection could disappear and we would have to rely on the statistics for grant distribution for many years to come. It would he a travesty if that were allowed to happen.
What can be done? The Government need to take a long-term view on the census. We need a longer gap between the publication of the census results and the implementation of the statistics for the distribution of grant. That would allow disputes, such as this one, to be resolved. It would also allow other factors such as ethnicity to be included. We need greater scrutiny of the process of the census; the methodology, the data sets and the conclusions. There has to be fuller public examination.
We also need a formal disputes procedure. That would deal with all the rowing between the city and Mr. Cook about what information the city can and cannot have. We should establish an independent system of assessing alternative sets of data when they are so at variance with what the census has uncovered. In the medium term, we need greater scrutiny of the ONS. The integrity of statistics is vital in the development of public policy, whether that is on unemployment, crime, poverty, homelessness or population trends as a whole. It is essential that the statistics are reliable. Government and Parliament need to do everything that they can to scrutinise the statistics.
We need more clarity on the rules on data sharing. We heard about Manchester's efforts to obtain data from the ONS. Either the supply has been slow or the ONS has refused outright to provide information on the grounds that it would breach confidentiality. Let me give one example of that. The city asked for data on general practitioner lists, but it has not been given. I do not know whether the membership of the national health service security and confidentiality advisory group is an official secret, but its members should be told that we are not after information on individual patients. We think that we have a right to know the total figures and expect to receive them. I fully accept that the registrar general cannot disclose personal information because it is an offence to do so, but the code of practice on access to Government makes it clear than the ONS and others should "respond openly" to requests for information.
On immediate action, I suggest that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary does three things. First, she should inform the Deputy Prime Minister of the serious concerns about the accuracy of the 2001 census. She should advise him to make interim arrangements for next year's revenue support grant settlement. It is unacceptable that those with a variation of more than
262WH
10 per cent. in their populations should be expected to have to live with the new figures without a thorough evaluation of what has happened.
Secondly, a thorough review of the 2001 census should be undertaken and all alternative data carefully scrutinised. Thirdly, my hon. Friend should do everything she can to ensure that Manchester has access to all the information that it has requested. If she is prepared to do those things, she will begin to restore faith in the integrity of statistics and ensure that the city of Manchester gets the resources it needs to run the services required in what is still a great city.
10.28 am
Mr. Andrew Stunell: May I add my condolences to the family of Stephen Oake, the constable who died tragically in the course of duty yesterday? I am sure other hon. Members will want to associate themselves with that.
The Financial Secretary may not know that my constituency is called Hazel Grove and is part of the metropolitan borough of Stockport, which is adjacent to Manchester. I am sure Manchester Members would agree that people from Stockport do not automatically have the same view of the world as people in their city. There tends to be a rivalry between us which I hope is always friendly. On this particular occasion, however, I want to make it clear that I strongly support the points made by Manchester Members.
I am sure that the Financial Secretary will agree that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) gave a measured, thoughtful and thorough presentation of an almost incomprehensible set of figures. I am sure that the hon. Lady will respond in an equally measured and thoughtful way; she is noted for that. Furthermore, I hope that she will not be content with speaking to a bland ministerial brief but that she will come through with positive suggestions and an acknowledgement of the need for changes in the current approach.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Withington made clear the statistical differences between previous estimates and the numbers in the census. He drew attention to one or two obvious gaps. I want to build on one point that he touched on. He noted that the initial explanation for the discrepancy was that a large number of young men had gone overseas. It is true that large numbers of young men and women go away on gap years, perhaps remaining overseas for some time. However, in Stockport, which is adjacent to Manchester, a high number of young people stay on at school and go on to university and many of them take a gap year. It would thus be common sense to expect that a higher proportion of young men and women from an area such as mine in Stockport, with its middle-class and higher education background, its mobility and resources, would go overseas and stay there than from inner-city Manchester. Given the differences between Manchester and Stockport, if it is valid that 40,000 young people from Manchester opted to go overseas, where are all the young people from Stockport who should have done so? Some of the figures that have been chucked into the debate by people who are trying to justify the census figures need serious academic criticism.

263WH
The right hon. Gentleman said that there was a problem with the release of data. Will the Financial Secretary confirm that she will expedite the release of information about the total number of patients on GP lists? The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that postcode samples are not being carried out. The Financial Secretary now has the opportunity to tell us that she will expedite that matter.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there were 10,000 more council tax payers than the number of enumerated households. The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) pointed out that although his constituents were honest, even they were hardly likely to pay their council tax twice, or as phantom residents. In fact, most people who read the Manchester Evening News might say that the problem is underpayment rather than overpayment of council tax.
When we consider issues such as data checking and quality control, we have to acknowledge that the argument is on the side of the Manchester Members who have spoken in this debate, rather than on that of the ONS. The number of child benefit cases exceeds the total shown on the census, as does the number of people receiving pensions. It might be argued that as those benefits must be claimed, there may be fictional claimants who would not show up on the census. However, the figures on council tax payers must give the knockout blow to that argument.
The number of people on the electoral roll exceeds the number in the census, yet ever since the days of the poll tax we have heard the story that, especially in inner-city areas, there has been serious under-recording on electoral rolls. For the past 10 years and more, many of us have bemoaned that fact; yet Manchester, which has many inner-city characteristics, turns out to have 4,000 to 5,000 more people on its electoral roll than were recorded in the census. That does not make sense.
There is undoubtedly an enormous student population in the Greater Manchester area, especially concentrated in the city itself. Obtaining accurate records from students is bad enough for their tutors; I do not suppose it is any better for census enumerators.
All those things have dire financial consequences. The problems are not exclusive to Manchester, or to the university and other towns that were mentioned earlier. May I remind the Financial Secretary of the purpose of the census? It is not simply a neat academic exercise that continues a series of historical studies stretching back 200 years. It was not designed to enable genealogists to work out who was descended from whom and who moved from where. It was originally designed so that Governments could measure and design public services that were appropriate for communities and arrange for their delivery. The census was not designed for some other purpose, which has now thrown up a bizarre side effect. The core point of the census is to enable the Government to allocate resources and decide on appropriate services. On this occasion, it has clearly failed to do that job.
I have some questions for the Financial Secretary. If she cannot answer them now, I hope that she will be able to deal with them later. First, is she satisfied that the process of quality control—the check-off against the
264WH
raw census figures—is adequate? Plenty of evidence has been produced today to show that even where there is quality control, it is either ignored or fails to deliver the necessary checks and balances.
Secondly, does the Financial Secretary accept that the rush to produce results has been at the expense of accuracy and checking? Does she agree with the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins) that it might have been better to hold back from using the data until there had been a proper opportunity to check the discrepancies? Can the Government answer for the discrepancies that were found on child benefit, pensioners and school rolls?
Incidentally, the sum of school rolls in Manchester does not include all children of school age in Manchester, as those of us in Stockport know well. Plenty of children from Manchester go across the border to Stockport or to Trafford. If the sum of the school rolls is greater than the sum of children, we can be sure that the total number of children in Manchester is even greater.
Finally, will the Financial Secretary order the release of the additional data on GP lists, commission work on postcode samples and cut through the smokescreen of data protection? Will she do all that she can to restore faith in the census as a sound basis for describing the demographics of our complex society? It is nowhere more complex than in the mosaic of different communities in Manchester and Greater Manchester.
10.39 am
Mr. Howard Flight: I, too, express my condolences to the family of Stephen Oake.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) on securing this important debate, which, as we all know, has a wider application, beyond Manchester. We are expecting the Financial Secretary to tell us how the Government propose to resolve the problems caused by self-evident errors in the 2001 census figures. The Government's current position—as I think The Times reported on 9 January—is to dismiss pleas from councils for extra cash to cover multi-million pound funding shortfalls triggered by the census figures unless the mistakes are admitted by Len Cook, the national statistician. The Government have also said that they will not override the census figures, despite all the evidence and a vigorous campaign by individuals such as the two chief executives of Manchester.
As we have heard, the population discrepancy for Manchester is more than 10 per cent.—47,000 people—which translates into what is likely to be a recurrent funding shortfall of about £18 million a year until the next census in 10 years. In six other authorities there were even greater proportional discrepancies between the census figures and the 2000 estimates. The largest discrepancy was in Westminster, at 25.9 per cent., but it was also more substantial than Manchester in Forest Heath, Kensington and Chelsea, Cambridge, Richmond upon Thames and the City of London. Unless the problem can be resolved, the annual loss for Westminster is £63 million per annum. In Birmingham, the census discrepancies were fewer, but it faces losses in Government grants of £40 million per annum and could suffer a reduction in its European Union regeneration funding.

265WH
Prima facie, the inaccurate census results seem to have occurred where returns were poor. As has been well aired, those results matter to citizens because of their importance not only in the recurring allocation of local authority grants but in the funding of primary care trusts. That point has not been adequately explored. I do not know how much it matters, but it would be logical to assume that in Manchester 46,000 patients will not be funded for their GP or hospital needs unless a correction is made.
The whole matter is in the same territory as the Government's control mantras and their somewhat discredited targeting process. What sounds fine in principle—the requirement for evidence for central Government policy in order to direct funding—is in practice proving counter-productive for deprived inner-city areas when based on census figures that are, prima facie, incorrect. As Members have already argued, transient populations are reluctant, for a variety of reasons, to complete complex official forms. People are daunted by a census form that has grown from five questions in 1801 to 40 questions at present; not all of which are necessary, especially as regards the important funding decisions for which the census is used.
The central criticism of the ONS and of Len Cook, its head, is that they failed to adjust the figures to reach a sensible, overall estimate of population where census participation seems to have been adequate and where the census results contradict reliable and established property-based data. In Westminster, the response was only 74 per cent; in Manchester, as we have heard, there are more council tax payers, more voters, more children, more pensioners and more children at school than the census figures show. I cannot understand why the ONS has not sorted out the problems in Manchester where the prima facie evidence shows that the figures were incorrect.
Attempts have been made to restructure the ONS and to improve its independence and reliability. However, as we all know, there have been disturbing spats with the Statistics Commission, which was set up to monitor the work of the ONS. Decisions have been questioned on the classification of receipts from the third-generation mobile telephony licences, on the status of Network Rail and, especially, on data relating to pension saving.
The ONS could have increased the accuracy of the status. There should have been more door knocking and the ONS should have been willing to examine substantiated evidence of mistakes when it was presented with unexpectedly large changes in population. The ONS could have made greater use of new survey techniques and could have adopted administrative records that have proved accurate in the past, especially for pinpointing data in inner-city areas.
As we have heard, the ONS figures for Manchester do not match property-based data. One would have thought that that problem was capable of speedy resolution and reconciliation but the ONS appears to have dragged its feet. In that context, I challenge the Financial Secretary's recent response to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) that the 2001 census had undergone vigorous testing and quality checking in both fieldwork and processing. The evidence that we have heard today suggests that that was not the case. However, I am glad that the Financial Secretary has advised us that the Treasury is working
266WH
with local authorities that experienced unexpectedly large and, prima facie, unlikely population shifts to find explanations. I look forward to hearing the results of that exercise.
After some unsatisfactory correspondence with the ONS, Westminster has started judicial review proceedings against Len Cook for alleged non-discharge of his duties under the Census Act 1920. The council is also considering an application to the Chancellor, under section 6 of the Act, to rerun the census in Westminster. If Westminster is successful but the issue remains unresolved for Manchester, I am sure that Manchester would follow suit; so rather than wasting more time and effort, the pressure is on the Government to sort out the problem.
Manchester faces a further problem because the council pledged to keep its council tax increase modest—about 2.5 per cent.—yet, on its own figures, its budget needs to increase by more than 10 per cent. to offer the same level of services as last year. It is not satisfactory or sufficient for the Government to stall by arguing that the local government grants for 2003–04 will provide a one-year floor of a 3.5 per cent. increase. The Government have acknowledged that, mostly due to their own actions, there will be significant cost increases throughout the country of about 7 per cent. a year, so the floor may not even cover those increases.
The Government should accept the limitations of the census data when allocating funds for a wide range of policies. Manchester will lose at least £18 million this year and possibly even more each year for the next decade unless the process is corrected. Furthermore, as I stressed, its primary care trusts will be substantially short-changed.
I hope that we shall now hear from the Financial Secretary how these unfortunate and unnecessary problems are to be resolved.
10.48 am
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): May I begin by saying how pleased I am to be serving yet again under your chairmanship, Mr. Cook?
I, too, add my condolences to the family of Stephen Oake.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) on securing this important debate. I am, of course, aware of the economic significance of Manchester; indeed, my constituency, Bolton, West, is within the boundaries of Greater Manchester. I also understand the significance of the census results for the allocation of resources, although the Treasury is not directly responsible for that allocation and I would expect hon. Members not to hold me answerable today for the way in which the census results are used by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
I am also aware of the interest that hon. Members have taken in these issues. I met a delegation of Manchester MPs, including those present in this Chamber, and MPs from other local authorities that have been affected.
Before turning to the detail of the Manchester census, I affirm that we are confident that the census figures for England and Wales, released on 30 September last year,

267WH
provide the best ever estimate of the population nationally and in each local authority. I wholly reject the charge of gross incompetence that has been made against the Office for National Statistics.
Of course, serious concerns have been expressed by local authorities whose census results differ in particular from the previous year's mid-year estimates. The vast majority of local authorities, however, are satisfied with the census results. Any Government must have authoritative figures that establish the size, make-up and geographic distribution of their people to provide a benchmark population derived on a coherent basis across the country. That benchmark has been established according to agreed statistical methodologies and has been subject to rigorous scrutiny, not just by the Government but by outside professionals and academics. In the United Kingdom, the accepted definitive benchmark for the population is the 10-yearly census.
Carrying out a census of the population is a significant task—it is the largest civilian exercise undertaken by any Government and involves a huge amount of planning, not simply in data collection but in the statistical methodologies used to determine outputs. The difficulty facing statisticians is that no census in the world ever achieves a 100 per cent. response rate. If such a result could be achieved, conducting a census would be relatively easy, but the world does not work like that. The 2001 census was designed to achieve the most accurate result using the best methods available. It was designed from the outset to take full account of what users of statistics really want—figures representing everyone. As a result, the 2001 census is the first in this country to represent the entire population.
That representation was achieved through a new and rigorous statistical strategy known as the one-number census. Census response in England and Wales—the proportion of people returning a valid form—was 94 per cent. The 6 per cent. of people estimated to have been missed by the census have been added to the counts using that statistical process which, prior to its adoption, had been the subject of extensive consultation.
One of the key elements of the one-number census is an independent follow-up survey. The census coverage survey involved an intensive face-to-face survey of a sample population of 300,000—by far the largest independent check on a census ever carried out. By combining the results of the census and the census coverage survey it was possible in 2001 to estimate the total resident population to a high level of precision, plus or minus 0.2 per cent.
Mr. Stringer: Is my hon. Friend prepared to provide the information on which those assertions are based? My understanding is that in Manchester the checks were done in areas such as the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington where there were very few problems, but not in areas where there were difficulties, such as my constituency or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central. Will the Minister check that?
Ruth Kelly: Of course I will. That is one of the issues that has come up in the attempt to reconcile
268WH
administrative data with the census figures while respecting confidentiality—an issue that I shall return to if I have time.
I shall not dwell on the survey's statistical basis—I know that hon. Members want to hear more about the way in which the census was conducted in Manchester— save to say that in England and Wales there was an extensive quality assurance process for comparative data sets. I shall address some of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington, such as the preparedness and speed with which the ONS responded to requests for data.
The first letter from Manchester city council was received by Len Cook, the head of the ONS, on 7 October. He responded on 11 October, and meetings between him and council representatives took place on 4 November and 6 December, and there were further working meetings and correspondence. Available information was supplied at each stage of the process. The only outstanding information that has not yet been supplied, but which has been requested, is on NHS patient data, as genuine issues of confidentiality are involved. My office has tried to discover the position on that data set, and has been assured that the data will be released soon. I am hopeful that they will be released today, but I assure hon. Members that there have been serious confidentiality considerations that could not be treated lightly and had to be taken into account before the data were released. However, the ONS has assured me that it will be released as soon as it has received it.
Turning to the administrative data, it appears odd that many of the figures used by Manchester city council for population estimates do not at first sight tally with the census results, but there are serious problems with much of the administrative data. Many of the data sets are prone to data inflation—when people move house, for instance, they do not automatically remove their names from a register. That is particularly true of GP registration lists, the numbers on which are commonly much higher than the underlying population estimate in many local authorities.
Electoral registers were not used by the ONS as comparative data sets in the one-number census because of well-documented data deficiencies. For example, students may register both at their term-time and vacation addresses, but the published census figures count them only at their term-time address. People with two homes may register at both addresses—the census only counts people at the address where they spend the majority of their time. There are problems then, and Manchester is certainly not the only local authority whose electoral register exceeds the estimate of the underlying population base.
Manchester city council and hon. Members have raised with me and the ONS the issue of whether the property data sets held by the city council and the ONS could be reconciled. The ONS is considering that, and is prepared to undertake such an exercise. However, that would not be simple. A significant proportion of the difference between the two figures can be accounted for. For example, much of the discrepancy between the 177,000 properties on the Manchester list and the 168,000 on the census list can be explained by communal residences being counted as individual households by Manchester but as communal residences by the census.

269WH
I am advised that if the communal residences that Manchester, according to ONS, may have counted as individual households housed an average of 38 people, that would account for far more than the 6,000 difference between the two sets of figures. Reconciling the lists is not straightforward and would involve an extensive process of checks taking several months that would have to be agreed by both parties. The ONS, however, has agreed to co-operate as much as possible in that process.
Another issue that has been raised is the release of postcode data. Again, the ONS is prepared to look at that, but I am advised that some postcodes include only one address, so the issue of data confidentiality arises. In such cases, postcode data could not be released on a straightforward basis.
Turning to the follow-up to the process, it is clear that the ONS mid-year population estimates have in many areas overestimated both the size and growth of the population for the past few areas. The national statistician considers that the reason for that is not so much the addition and subtraction of figures for births and deaths but migration—both external migration between countries and internal migration between local authority areas. He has already set up a fundamental national statistics quality review into the international migration figures, which is expected to report in the second quarter of this year. In addition, we need a more far-reaching review of cross-Government requirements of population figures to support Government objectives. The national statistician has discussed with the permanent secretary and his colleagues the need for strong action to find solutions.
11.00 am
Sitting suspended till Two o'clock.

Rural and Island Transport
2 pm
Andrew George: I am pleased to have secured this debate, and having had one on exactly the same subject on 8 January 2002, I am pleased, too, that so many people have turned up to what is now my annual debate. It is good to have an opportunity to assess the Government's progress against the measures that I set for them last year. The Government set targets for themselves, but I set mine for the Minister.
I could use valuable time in this 90-minute debate congratulating and thanking the Minister for investment in rural transport, but I shall not do that because I want to raise difficult issues that need to be addressed. I am not blaming the Minister, but simply using this opportunity to draw matters to his attention in the hope that he will use his good offices to assist us in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, which are the two areas on which I shall concentrate. The Minister could equally take up valuable time telling me that I should have congratulated him on the investment, initiatives, funds and subsidy grants, but I am sure that he will want to concentrate on addressing the points that I raise. I know that he considers such matters in a measured way and understands the challenges of transport to Plymouth and onward to Cornwall.
I intend to raise three issues. The first is bus services in Cornwall, where there are specific challenges. Such challenges vary throughout the country and the commercial and market environment in which bus services operate in Cornwall is unique because the geography of Cornwall is unique. Some solutions for other parts of the country may not apply there. I also want to speak about rail services into Cornwall and then to raise some of the issues I raised last time concerning important lifeline services to my constituents on the Isles of Scilly, who have specific concerns.
I can talk only about Cornwall when it comes to buses; although I know a little about bus services in other parts of the country, there is a particularly challenging environment in Cornwall. Cornwall is not just a long, thin peninsula with many small towns and no large urban centre. There are a number of peninsulas and many services run not between large market towns but down the peninsulas to small villages. That makes it extremely challenging to run services.
I appreciate—as does the county council, which congratulates the Government—the rural bus subsidy grant and the rural bus challenge bid process, which enable the county council to seek further assistance to bolster services in Cornwall. However, the history of bus services in Cornwall shows that there are many challenges. Some 90 or so 24-year-old double-decker buses still run through Cornwall's lanes. There are but another 30 of those buses in the Government's south-west zone, so there are three times as many of those buses in Cornwall as there are in the rest of the zone. That demonstrates that the legacy of the system that used to operate presents a number of challenges.
In addition, there are very few profit-making routes in Cornwall. The main operator of services in Devon and Cornwall is First Western National, and I understand that ours is the one region in which services run at a loss. It is inevitable that the operator's reward is that it gets

271WH
not new buses but older rolling stock. There is also a wider problem related to providing drivers. First Western National and other service providers have excellent drivers. Drivers are terribly poorly paid, considering the multi-skilled job that they have to perform. After all, sometimes they have to deal with issues of public order; they have to take fares from passengers in a way that does not happen for rail services. As a result of the difficulty of securing necessary drivers, First Western National has failed to meet its timetable obligations on several routes over the past year. Indeed, the situation has become worse over the past year and many of my constituents have complained.
Mr. Paul Tyler: My hon. Friend will be well aware that the crisis in the group is hitting very hard in the rural areas of my constituency, where the situation is worse even than it is in his constituency. Does he accept that that is a direct result of the very long period over which a virtual monopoly has developed? The group has been allocated more and more subsidised routes and school contracts—there is an additional crisis in that area—and some of the smaller, family-run operators have been driven out. That means that, when the big group pulls out, there is very little flexibility for anyone else to come in. It is the supermarket situation on wheels, and that is extremely dangerous. Does my hon. Friend accept that the situation is a direct result of the Conservative deregulation legislation of the early 1980s?
Andrew George: I agree entirely and I am well aware of the particular challenges and problems of running services in north Cornwall. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the failure to provide adequate services in that area, just as my constituents in west Cornwall have complained about buses not turning up. The regulatory environment in which providers operate arose from the Transport Act 1985. Liberal Democrat and Labour Members protested strongly about the deregulation of bus services, warning that it would create the sort of problems that we are experiencing.
While buses are failing to operate to timetable, there are also difficulties and challenges in meeting the six-minute window obligation. Only 90 per cent. of buses arrive within the six-minute window, which allows buses to be between one minute early and five minutes late against their schedule. When I complained about services in Cornwall and the failure of buses to turn up in some remote villages, the response was that the operators had met 99.5 per cent. of timetable service obligations. If that happened in metropolitan areas, one would not notice the difference. My point, which I have made to the company and the regulators of the service, is that services to remote villages, which may have only two or three buses a day if they are lucky, suffer most. There is not a failure across the whole service, but when services to remote villages fail, it has a substantial impact not only on individual users, but on the confidence of users, and that is clearly unacceptable. The failure to meet those obligations resulted in the transport commissioner fining First Western National £35,000. Although I support what the company is trying
272WH
to do and recognise the challenge that it faces, I was disappointed that it went to a transport tribunal and successfully overturned the fine. If sanctions are to be imposed to ensure that obligations are met, it is important that they stick.
There have been a number of proposals, and I congratulate First Western National on undertaking a review with the TAS partnership. On 16 December, it published a new proposal, which will result in its contracting its bus services to the more profitable routes and possibly withdrawing from the less profitable routes.
Ms Candy Atherton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that starting consultation on 16 December, near to Christmas, was not the most participatory way in which to run the exercise?
Andrew George: I agree with the hon. Lady, who has helped me to make my next point. The deadline for responses to the consultation was 6 January. Not only was the consultation launched as people were preparing for their Christmas festivities, but they had to respond by twelfth night, which was not the best scenario. Many people, including me, complained about the limited time in which they could write, respond and object to the document. The company has responded by being more flexible, and the county council has likewise recognised that it needs to give people more time to consider the proposals. Having said that, the county council has to prepare itself for implementation of the programme, which will result in First Western National operating between 80 and 85 per cent. of its original obligation.
The county council takes the view, with which I have some sympathy, that it is far better for a struggling company to operate 80 to 85 per cent. of services than struggle with its original programme. I agree with that, provided that the county council's tendering process successfully finds the kind of companies that my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has identified. If local, family companies can put in tenders that are acceptable to the county council, they are the companies to which we will turn to meet the service obligations on those scheduled routes. That process has already commenced, and by early February the county council will know whether the tendering process has resulted in an acceptable alternative to First Western National. It will be interesting to see whether First Western National tenders new, more expensive bids for providing services. That would clearly result not only in raised eyebrows across Cornwall but in considerable protests. There are some important challenges ahead.
On the routes that are being withdrawn—those in my constituency serve remote villages such as Zennor and Gwithian—constituents have written to me saying that they depend on those services. Indeed, in some cases people's businesses depend on those services. A hotelier from Zennor, for example, has written to me and explained that many of the guests arrive at his hotel by public transport, which means that the withdrawal will dent his business. Mr. Taylor, who is the secretary of the Gwithian residents association, has protested most strongly against the proposed withdrawal of services from Gwithian. The current services are essential to many people living in the village. They may be few but the bus service is very important to them, providing an essential service to Camborne.

273WH
I do not want a witch hunt in order to find culprits for what has been, in many cases, a failure of services during the past year, even though there are worries about the way in which the service will develop in the future. We could easily end up blaming the company, the county council or someone else. That is not what we want. The challenge exists, however, and we must raise our standards to respond to it. I commend both the company and the county council and encourage them to work closely in future to address some of the challenges ahead.
One option for the future in the far west of Cornwall is a rural bus challenge bid for a demand-responsive service in west Penwith. I understand that the decision on that will be made in early February, along with all others. That is a particularly exciting bid. Four such services operate in Cornwall, including in north Cornwall, which are successful, as far as I am aware. Will the Minister look favourably on that bid and consider it carefully?
I spoke to the Minister and his staff before the debate to make them aware of my next point. Last summer, I asked the Minister questions about the future of community buses. About 13 of them run in the smaller villages throughout Cornwall, and I worked for a community development charity when the rural transport development fund was used to purchase them. They all run extremely well, providing an essential and scheduled service.
The Government have undertaken consultation on the continuation of the fuel duty rebate—I think that it is now called something else—available for community buses. It would be helpful to have clarification on what is happening with the entitlement to fuel duty rebate, especially for community buses that need to offer a flexible, almost demand-responsive, service on scheduled routes from village communities to the nearby recreational and shopping centres.
Representations have been made to me about regulations that mean that non-profit-making community groups are not entitled to pay their drivers. That has caused significant difficulties in that some community buses have not been able to operate as extensively as the operators would like. Voluntary car schemes are allowed to pay their drivers; although they do not receive a salary, they receive a return rate that is, strictly speaking, more than the car's running costs. Many such schemes have little difficulty finding drivers, but it is difficult for community bus schemes to offer enough financial inducement to attract drivers. Will the Minister address that point if he has time?
I mentioned train services in my previous debate,and I know that other hon. Members will want to mention them. During the five years of Labour Government, reliability has, if anything, got worse. I know that there have been particular challenges during the past couple of years but the Minister will have seen the figures. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) recently analysed figures showing the reliability of all operators' services to Cornwall and found that passengers suffered from 120 per cent. more delays and almost 50 per cent. more cancellations in 2002 than in 1997. That has dented people's confidence in services running to Cirnwall.
274WH
First Great Western's response is that it plans to introduce a 200 mph service to Plymouth, but it would be far better for the company to walk before it can run. I do not care whether services take three, four, five or six hours to get to London, but what business users, other passengers and I, as a service user, want to know is that trains are going to arrive at the expected time. That should be the starting point of any changes to the service.
I do not want to detain the Chamber unnecessarily because I know other hon. Members want to speak. The Minister will be aware of the issue of lifeline services to the Isles of Scilly because I have raised it with him personally. Last year, I made the point that the Isles of Scilly receive no public subsidy for the helicopter, fixed-wing aircraft or ferry services that connect them with the mainland, which is 30 miles from St. Mary's. I gave figures that I will not repeat for subsidies now available through the Scottish Executive, which were previously available through the Treasury, to Caledonian McBride—
Mr. John Burnett: MacBrayne.
Andrew George: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Subsidies were provided to Caledonian MacBrayne for services to the off islands in Scotland. That has meant lifeline service ticket costs for Scottish users significantly below those charged to those living in the Isles of Scilly.
Mr. Burnett: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I agree that ferries are a vital ingredient of a sustainable rural and island transport policy. However, those ferries have to be built. The tendering process for the Torpoint ferries is now underway and Appledore shipyards in my constituency is part of that process. Does my hon. Friend agree that Appledore Shipbuilders—the last commercial shipyard left in England—has a record second to none, with an outstanding work force, product satisfaction and the finest quality ships built on time, at a fixed value-for-money price?
Andrew George: My hon. Friend sets me a challenge. He knows his constituency well, and he knows the quality and efficiency of the work in the Appledore shipyards. I do not doubt that he is correct, and I wish that company well in its future tenders, whether for the Torpoint ferry or other contracts.
The Minister may have views on the Isles of Scilly because he comes from a maritime constituency with shipping interests. One never knows but the Appledore shipyards may tender for the Scillonian contract as well.
I spoke about services to the Isles of Scilly last year, and the Minister rightly said that further studies should be undertaken on the options available to the Isles of Scilly concerning air and ferry services. Those were completed in April, and the Government said that they could not consider the issues under objective 1 funding, or match funding, unless the council of the Isles of Scilly produced a transport strategy. Councillors have run off and produced a transport strategy, which was published last month.

275WH
Unsurprisingly, that strategy has several options, which include the necessity of replacing the Scillonian III. It is quite clear to anyone considering the matter— and I know that the Government have done so—that the Isles of Scilly Steamship Company Ltd. does not have the revenue stream to fund the replacement service between the mainland and the Isles of Scilly that modern users would expect.
Cornwall has a window of opportunity under objective 1 to put the matter right and make the investment, but match funding would have to be available. I urge the Minister to consider the issue carefully and not set the Isles of Scilly further hurdles to jump. Despite the studies, consultations and strategies that have been undertaken, the issue has not gone away. It still needs to be addressed, and I would be grateful if the Minister addressed it.
I appreciate that issues such as buses, rail and, certainly, transport links to the Isles of Scilly are challenges. I did not expect the Minister to come to the Chamber this afternoon with cheque book in hand or answers ready made, although of course my constituents will be deeply disappointed that he has not. However, I hope that he will meet me to discuss bus services, and perhaps he will come to the beautiful Isles of Scilly to meet the council and the operators of the service to discuss the transport links, so that the significant challenges faced by the community may be properly addressed. I thank hon. Members for listening to my case.
Mr. Frank Cook (in the Chair): I remind hon. Members that the standing convention in Westminster Hall is to commence the first of the three winding-up speeches 30 minutes before conclusion. I ask those participating to bear it in mind that we have only 34 minutes left and to keep their comments as pertinent and as brief as possible, especially when making or accepting interventions, which undoubtedly prolong the agony.
2.27 pm
Ms Candy Atherton: I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George), with whom I share west Cornwall, on securing the debate. I have been applying for an Adjournment debate on the issue for some months. Indeed, I felt rather like the unlucky lottery loser—every time I put my name down I knew that I would not be the one. It has been very frustrating. This is an opportunity not to be missed, so much so that when I met the Prime Minister last week, the top item on my agenda was transport issues.
I shall be honest and admit that transport in Cornwall is somewhat of a curate's egg. There are some very good parts, with which I am proud to be associated and with which the Government have been involved, but there is also a post-privatisation hotch-potch that has caused problems. More must be done.
The first issue that I want to raise is air links. The south-west has the lowest number of flights in the United Kingdom, not because the people in the southwest do not want to fly but because they lack the opportunity to do so. It is not helpful for people who live
276WH
in a rural area to know that they can get from Gatwick to New York more quickly than they can get from Falmouth to Gatwick on public transport.
Ryanair's popular daily service into Cornwall has proved that there is a real demand for a range of air links. Nevertheless, British Airways announced that as part of its restructuring it is selling off its link, which is primarily used by the business community. The service is profitable and so popular that often one cannot get on it. I have no doubt that the link will be bought but, in the meantime, the decision sends out negative signals about access to rural communities to people who may want to conduct business in Cornwall.
Let me give some examples of how Cornwall will be affected if the nightmare scenario occurs and we lose the link. The 2001 study for the then Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions concluded that losing the Newquay-Plymouth-Gatwick link would mean annual passenger disbenefits—that means costs—of £8.4 million if people were forced to use surface transport such as road or rail. It would mean 3,000 job losses in the wider economy of Devon and Cornwall. That represents a huge number of people in a predominantly rural economy such as ours in Cornwall.
People say to me, "Ah, but now we've got Ryanair." That does not provide the business service that people who fly on international routes need if they are to conduct business in the area. I tell the Minister that our party said in 1997 that we would use European Union regulations to protect regional flights. France uses public service orders to ensure that peripheral regions are connected. There is a campaign in Devon and Cornwall—and countrywide, I have to say—to earmark a third Heathrow runway for regional flights, and I am inclined to support that. Government consultation is currently going on, although I understand that the Government are saying that EU regulations may not allow for the protection of existing slots because that could be seen as state aid.
The pressure on the slots is high and they are subject to heavy and extensive lobbying. However, if an airline ceases to use a regional slot, it should surely be ring-fenced for other regional slots and not given to international, and mostly trans-Atlantic, flights. There is also a campaign for regions to buy the slots. That is currently against EU regulations but I understand that the European Commission is minded to examine the matter. Will the Government and the Minister look into it?
We now come to roads. Goss moor is a high priority to my constituents. Anyone who has tried to get in or out of the county will know the nightmare that Goss moor can be. In the summer, it seems impossible to get through because of tourists coming into the county, although we welcome them, of course. In the winter, we dig up the road to repair it so that tourists can use it in the summer. The blockages cause everyone misery and I am delighted that we are moving forward.
A fantastic nature reserve, called, I believe, the Cornish everglades, will be created when the new dual carriageway is finished. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh, but that is what will be created. The needs of the Cornish economy will be well served when the new road progresses. It is a great success of which the Government can rightly be proud. The Highways

277WH
Agency is due to publish its plans for the A30 at Goss moor this year—followed by the inevitable public inquiry. I suspect that a protest by Swampy will follow, although technical engineers reliably inform me that he will immediately sink into the mire.
Mr. Tyler: As the hon. Lady knows, the section of the road is in my constituency. I would not want her to give the impression that a public inquiry is inevitable. Under the previous Conservative Government, as she will recall, there was considerable consultation about the stretch of road. Sadly, that Government stopped work on it as part of the road investment cuts that occurred at the end of their period of office. We could make rapid progress because there is broad support for improvements to the A30, and I endorse what the hon. Lady said about it. I also endorse what she said about air links, and the Minister knows that we had a useful exchange about that.
Ms Atherton: I am glad that we can agree about something. I hope that there will not be a public inquiry because I know that 99 per cent. of my constituents are 110 per cent. behind the scheme and pray daily for the opening of the road, as do I.
This year's transport settlement was excellent for Cornwall. The local transport capital settlement means that it will receive £18.5 million next year, and £150 million has been spent on improvements to the A30.
The other burning issue for Cornwall is across the border in our neighbour, Devon, on the A303 east of Illminster. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), has an interest in that. I tell the Minister that we need a resolution to the Blackdown hills issue as soon as possible. There is great news about the improvements to the A303 that were announced before Christmas, but not having a decision on the Blackdown hills is a real problem and a disbenefit to the region.
Now we come to railways—oh dear. Virgin Trains has announced cuts to south-west links, and especially evening trains between Plymouth and Bristol. I am sure that the Minister is more than unhappy about that. It is also halving the number of trains stopping at Gloucester. That is a negative. I know that it is a matter for Virgin, but any pressure that the Minister could bring to bear would help.
When I met the Strategic Rail Authority and Railtrack in October, there seemed to be progress—this is the good news—on the Probus to Burngullow dualling, which is our main link through the county.
Richard Younger-Ross: Is the hon. Lady aware that Virgin has not only cut the service but kept the published timetable in place? People will go to catch a train, because it is in the published timetable, but the train will not be there.
Ms Atherton: Branson should be ashamed of himself for doing that, and the Western Morning News can quote me on that.
However, there are some positives, and the dualling of Probus to Burngullow is critical for trains coming to my end of Cornwall. As I said, before Christmas I met
278WH
Railtrack, which has a circular rail map of investment: the further from the centre a place is, the less likely it is to get its rail improvements. For those nearer the middle, the investment may just happen, so naturally I looked at the outer rim for the Cornwall improvements. However, I had to look further and further into the centre because Probus to Burngullow is a central priority for what is now Network Rail, which is good. I congratulate the county council on leading on that work and on the branch line between Truro and Falmouth. The Minister will be pleased to know that we now have a Sunday service, which we have not had before.
None the less, we want to double the number of trains. This September the combined universities project is taking its first students in Penryn. Thousands of students—and more each year—will need access, and we do not want them to travel by car. We want them to be on trains, so we need to double the number of trains. There is real potential, and I hope that Network Rail will get on with the work led by the county council.
Reducing journey times to London is critical, and rail must complement road and air travel, rather than be an alternative to them. We have had the farce about voyager trains and sea water at Dawlish—the Monty Python team could not have invented it, and nor should they. Will the Minister put more pressure on Virgin to sort out the problem? First Great Western's plans for the future include increasing to eight the number of trains a day to Cornwall. It also plans to cut journey times between Penzance and London by 12 minutes in the next two years. Oh dear me—12 minutes hardly makes us feel that the company is getting to grips with the problems, does it?
To highlight the issue, I received a letter yesterday morning from a constituent, Catherine Hayes-Davies. She went to London before Christmas and was half an hour late arriving. She writes:
"However, the return journey was a different matter. The 18.03 service was cancelled, although no announcement was made, and no information to that effect appeared on the display boards. The next train was posted as the 18.17 to Penzance, platform 8 When I arrived at the platform and reached C carriage I was unable to board the train for the crush of people already inside. About 10–12 of us were standing on the platform, trying to board, and this pattern was being repeated all down the train. Even the 1st class was packed with people standing all down the carriage and at all access doors. At about 18.30 an official—presumably a guard, attempted to close the carriage door. When my group refused to stand back—we all had reserved seats, valid tickets and were going to stations in Cornwall—we were threatened with the police. The others were, like myself, all senior citizens, so maybe it was our age that prevailed with the official."
My constituent was eventually able to get on to the train, which finally arrived two hours late. That highlights the problem.
I am aware of time and will talk only briefly about the subject of buses, which is high on the agenda in my constituency postbag. The Government have undoubtedly done great things in Cornwall with buses, including the new Bissoe Valley scheme, which has for the first time provided new bus services and a calling system to get the buses to come to individuals. That is a totally new experience for some of my constituents and is warmly to be welcomed.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the appalling consultation that took place over Christmas. Some 57 school routes and 27 bus routes are under threat in the

279WH
county. People are very concerned. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) is here. Excellent partnerships exist with the county councils in Avon and Devon. It has been suggested that the partnership in Cornwall is not all that it could be. I ask the Minister to look into that. Finally, transport issues in Cornwall affect not only the hon. Member for St. Ives and his constituents, but my constituents in Falmouth and Camborne. As one of the Cornish MPs present, I should like to be included in the meeting to discuss transport links with Cornwall if it is decided to have one.
2.40 pm
Mr. Andrew Turner: I apologise to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) for arriving in the middle of his speech. As hon. Members will know, my constituency is the only constituency in England that cannot be reached on foot from Westminster, however important it is to try. We were therefore particularly disappointed that the Minister's announcement at the end of last month did not mention ferries or offshore shipping, although we welcome the money that has been provided for the Ryde interchange. I do not propose to repeat all the points that I made in the debate last year on this subject.
I should like to update the House on the progress of the work following the cross-Solent study which reported in March 2001. The study was designed to investigate how assistance can be given for people crossing the Solent for health reasons or for education, training or job seeking, and has so far generated two schemes. The first is a trial scheme under single regeneration budget 6 to help unemployed people and jobseekers who are looking for work on the mainland. That scheme will benefit residents of the six wards in Ryde, which is only one eighth of the population of my constituency. The second scheme involves health and hospital transport, and it is being put together by the primary care trust. It is nearly ready to implement, and I am pleased to have been able to assist through my office.
Regrettably, no progress has yet been made on cross-Solent travel for the purposes of education, although I am informed that the Learning and Skills Council is now willing to fund transport if local courses are not viable. Many of my constituents share my disappointment that, 22 months after the report was received, the schemes are still awaiting implementation. It is also disappointing that those schemes will benefit only a small proportion of my constituents. They have to be unemployed, seeking work, live in Ryde or need to cross the Solent for purposes of health.
Cross-Solent costs are expensive. Young people and other travellers need to cross the Solent less expensively in both directions. We obviously want to improve our tourist trade. We find it difficult to understand why the Government are so energetic at promoting new airports in the south-east to encourage tourists to go to Malaga, the West Indies and goodness knows where, when they are not encouraging work to reduce the cost of crossing the Solent. The county council is legally empowered to subsidise cross-Solent fares, just as it currently subsidises bus fares, but despite a 13 per cent. rate
280WH
increase last year and despite the Government's settlement this year, it cannot afford to do so. The council tells me:
"We have…discussed the issue with Government Office for the South East and…can confirm that GOSE officials briefed the Minister on this issue prior to his recent visit to the Island."
I presume that that means the Minister for Local Government and the Regions. The council adds that it is
"keen to explore other possible funding opportunities and hope to raise this issue when we meet GOSE officers later this month."
That shows the level of urgency with which this matter is being dealt, although it is not the level of urgency that I or my constituents would like. These issues have been raised not only with me but with my predecessor and my predecessor's predecessor. It would help if Isle of Wight council had a policy on cross-Solent fares. For years my constituents have wanted reductions in ferry fares but, as far as I am aware, the council has yet to put any concrete proposals to Ministers. In any response that Ministers give to the council, I hope that they will encourage it to present concrete proposals.
Finally, I wish to discuss car parking. That may seem a terribly parochial issue to raise but, at the beginning of the previous Parliament, Ministers said that they wanted car parking in towns to be reduced. They wanted a reduction in commuter parking and in parking for shopping purposes. That will be unrealistic in rural areas until there is a highly effective bus service. I am glad that the Secretary of State has reversed, or at least watered down, his aspirations to reduce traffic. I hope that he will also water down his aspirations to get rid of car parking in towns—aspirations that my local authority is quoting as a justification for allowing houses to be built without adequate parking. That has led to the clogging up of the streets of Cowes, which is one of our key ports for people commuting to work on the mainland. The council has sold off car parks in Cowes and Newport because it says that the Government do not want local car parking to be provided and want an end to such car parking. I hope that the Minister will clarify the position for the benefit of the council and, more importantly, for the benefit of my constituents.
2.47 pm
Mr. David Drew: I shall try to keep my remarks as brief as those of the previous speaker. I wish to join those who have criticised Virgin's decision. I will say a bit more about that later. The decision has caused difficulties in the whole of the south-west and, I presume, beyond. We need to say to the Minister, loud and clear, that negotiations with that company are required at the highest level.
I want to start with buses. I am always pleased to come to a debate that has been initiated by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George). This debate may seem like a rerun, because the people who speak will be more or less the people who spoke last time. However, there is no reason why we should not have an annual event to consider this important issue.
Many points have been made on the principles of how to improve bus transport. In my constituency in Gloucestershire, we have been able to make use of some of the Government's initiatives. However, there are a few caveats, and there have been problems with the

281WH
parish transport grant. I am aware that that comment will provoke sensitivities, and I know that that grant is not the sole responsibility of my hon. Friend and that he has to work with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Some capacity building is required to make parish councils realise that they have to work with other parish councils to come up with suitable plans. I hope that we will be able to analyse what has happened so far. It may sound ridiculous to say so, but we cannot give the money away. I have been trying to encourage many of my parish councils to come forward, but there is a nervousness because of the usual worries about where revenue streams will come from in future.
Ms Julia Drown: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge the ongoing problems with the co-ordination of bus services because of the impact of competition on authorities? Sometimes, competitor bus services cannot co-operate on joint ticketing and joint timetables. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to get rid of such bureaucracy so that our constituents in rural and urban areas get the best co-ordinated, most appropriate bus services?
Mr. Drew: I was going to make those points, so I thank my hon. Friend for saving me the effort. There have been calls to establish a strategic bus partnership similar to the Strategic Rail Authority. It need not be a national organisation, but could be organised at a regional or sub-regional level. We need to recognise what is happening to bus services. They were fragmented under deregulation, so it is difficult to co-ordinate initiatives and the money made available by the Government. I hope that the Minister will try to find ways in which we can do some valuable work through greater co-ordination between local authorities, the bus industry and bus users.
We have a promising bus service initiative called village link, which is an interactive run-around. It is responsive to passengers' needs, which leads to a series of problems. By the nature of things, people have to be organised enough to know when to book the bus in order to get on it. Systems of communication need to be examined more effectively.
Problems with reliability and information bedevil rural bus services. We should solve the two problems together. I am not saying that we should have the same interactive kit that is on London buses at every rural bus stop, but it could be installed at the main bus stops. If people know that there is only a 10-minute wait for the next bus, they will wait. At the moment the problem is that they could be waiting 10 minutes or two hours—or three days in some places, although that is a different kettle of fish. We cannot overcome such problems immediately.
There are some good initiatives in my area. Dursley and Cam plan to run an interactive bus and draw down the money that I mentioned. We must not forget the voluntary sector—there is a ring and ride in my area. We do not fund such services adequately or make enough use of them. The statutory services often dump on the voluntary services. In the unsavoury past, when the ambulance service was under pressure, the health transport people assumed that the voluntary bus service would pick people up and take them to hospital. That is
282WH
not acceptable. We need to fund and use voluntary services more appropriately. We must also ensure that they work properly within the statutory sector.
On the subject of trains, I have already made a plaintive plea about Virgin Trains. Virgin has dropped plans to run the Paddington to Birmingham service via Gloucester and Cheltenham, which has caused a new problem. Hindsight is always a wonderful thing, but Virgin was going to run that service without any subsidy at all. It has pulled out because it cannot get space at Paddington. We must now find another operator to take on the service, and it looks likely that Wessex Trains will be able to do so, but it is seeking a subsidy of £250,000 from the Strategic Rail Authority. Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider that case? We cannot afford to lose those trains, for all the reasons identified earlier.
Such problems give the railways a bad reputation. Anybody who has travelled by train to Paddington over the past couple of months will know that the station has had what can only be described as a nervous breakdown. The station coped commendably well with all the problems that came on the back of the Paddington rail crash, but more recently there have been new problems with flooding and signal breakdown. Those problems are regular rather than occasional occurrences, and we must do something about them. It would be wrong to blame the operators, because these are infrastructure problems. The signalling must be renewed.
I make my usual plea for the redoubling of the line between Kemble and Swindon, through the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown). Now that the fourth platform is open at Swindon there are extra trains going through, and we must avoid a bottleneck further along the line.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will put pressure on the SRA, which is considering the matter. There is money available, but I gather that the scheme must be evaluated. I am grateful to my friend Clive Morforth, who always brings rail problems to me. It is people like him who make us appreciate that trains are needed.
I come now to a different subject. I join the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) in his plea for Appledore Shipbuilders. I met representatives of one of the shipping companies in my constituency, which contains a big port called Sharpness. That company would join in any appeal for more British build and more repair. It would also ask that we recognise that the commissioning of transport in this country through shipping is greatly in need of—I will not say renationalising—a bit of patriotic fervour, because all the competitors seem to be able to overcome state aid, whereas we do not.
Mr. Burnett: I am delighted to hear of the hon. Gentleman's support for Appledore Shipbuilders. He has hit on the crucial point that competition must be fair and, in order to be fair, there must be the same ground rules. Does he agree that it is grossly unfair when United Kingdom shipbuilders and other companies are competing against overseas companies for orders? It is

283WH
unfair that those overseas companies receive huge subsidies, particularly in steel, which they can obtain at a reduced price.
Mr. Drew: I have never been a great fan of the state aid rules under the EU, but I wish that we would interpret them in the same way as the Germans and the Dutch.
2.56 pm
Mr. Alistair Carmichael: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on securing the annual debate on rural and island transport. I also welcome the Minister to Westminster Hall. I have often referred to him as the Minister with special responsibility for Westminster Hall. Last week, we tried to have a debate on marine pollution without him, but it did not really work, however hard the Minister for Rural Affairs tried, so I am delighted to see him back today.
I was slightly fazed to see the preponderance of hon. Members from the south-west of England and, indeed, Cornwall, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives reminds me. While remaining in the United Kingdom, it is impossible to get further away from my constituency than to visit my hon. Friend's end of the country. I draw attention to the number of hon. Members who have spoken about trains. My constituency has not a single yard of train track in it, so I do not consider that I am particularly well qualified to pick up on some of the points that have been made. However, it did strike me that the basic issues of planning and investment, co-ordination and integration are much the same wherever we go and whatever places are involved.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives started his contribution with remarks about buses, and his was a familiar story in many parts of the country. He was speaking about old stock running on unprofitable routes in rural areas. The point was first made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and picked up later by the hon. Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for South Swindon (Ms Drown), who said that such problems stem from bus deregulation in 1985. That is absolutely true.
Rural Britain is reaping a bitter harvest of deregulation. Although I accept that that was something that no doubt the Minister at the time would have opposed, the underlying problems caused by deregulation will not be fixed and will not get better on their own. I accept that the Government have undertaken several useful initiatives, but unless and until the underlying problems of integration and—dare I say it, not being a big advocate of big government myself —regulation are addressed, anything else that is done will just be tinkering.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives referred to the difficulties caused in the Isles of Scilly. I was astonished to hear that there would not be automatic investment in new ferry infrastructure there. If there is, ferries will no doubt be built at the splendid boatyard that my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) advertised magnificently. I hope that the Minister will afford the islands in the
284WH
constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives the same opportunities that are given to those north of the border. Generous though those opportunities may be by comparison, they are only the very basic opportunities that Government should provide.
The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) made a cri de coeur—one that is close to my own heart—for public service obligation orders. I noticed that the Minister just managed not to wince as those words tripped off my lips. The hon. Lady rightly identified the importance of air links to rural and island communities for business and tourism. I sympathise with what she says about the withdrawal of British Airways. What happens to the slots in Gatwick and Heathrow for regional air services once they have been withdrawn? That is a familiar problem for those in the highlands and islands—British Airways used to operate a service from Inverness to Heathrow, but it was withdrawn. We only have the Inverness to Gatwick service left. If the Minister has anything new to say about a public service obligation on the Inverness to Gatwick route, I shall be equally interested to hear that.
Through ticketing and transferring from another operator on to a British Airways flight taking people elsewhere in the country causes problems for business. There are difficulties for tourism also. Advertising and marketing are not as readily available to smaller companies as they are to companies such as British Airways. I share the hon. Lady's frustrations, which other hon. Members have also outlined, at the implementation of EU regulations.
Mr. Michael Weir: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will comment on landing charges at airports. Landing charges would be incongruent to smaller airlines that might come into many of the regional airports, particularly Inverness, to fill the gap left by British Airways.
Mr. Carmichael: Landing charges, in particular on the route operated by Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. to which the hon. Gentleman refers, is an issue on which I could probably fill another 90-minute Adjournment debate. Although I sympathise with the issues that he raises, I shall resist the temptation to address them at length today.
The hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne made the most eloquent remark of the day when she said, "Now we come to railways—oh dear." That really says it all.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) made a commendably succinct speech. He is one of a select group of three of us in the House who have island constituencies. I hope that the Minister will address his points. He made the link between transport and jobs and training. Likewise, the hon. Member for Stroud spoke of the need to co-ordinate bus authorities. He made an interesting point about interactive bus stops and highlighted the importance of the voluntary sector. I endorse that point. We have a dial-a-bus that seems to struggle from one financial crisis to another. None the less, it is a service that is appreciated by many in my constituency.
I wish to air one other area of transport policy, although I appreciate that the Minister does not have direct responsibility for it. It is a matter worth

285WH
recognising. Public transport does not really exist in many remote parts of the country. On the west of Shetland—a remoter part of my constituency—it is next to impossible to run conventional public transport because of the sparsity of the population. I suspect that with the best will in the world that will always be the case. For that reason, many people rely on the private car. That causes real difficulties. I anticipate, considering world events, that oil prices will rise, and that will have a knock-on effect at petrol pumps all over the country.
My constituents routinely pay between lop and 20p a litre more for petrol than people on the mainland. If the price rises, they will be hit disproportionately because as well as higher prices they must pay fuel duty and value added tax. If the price is higher to start with, we end up paying even more. Many of my constituents are on low or fixed incomes and live in the remoter parts of island communities, and it is particularly regressive that they should get hammered in this way. I suggest to the Minister that this, along with so many other aspects of transport policy, is an issue of social inclusion.
I do not know who is to blame. The retailers blame the wholesalers, and the wholesalers blame the distributors, who in turn blame the retailers. It goes round in a vicious circle. The Petrol Retailers Association made several suggestions to me that it might be possible to franchise the selling of petrol. Recently, the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs suggested that the vehicle excise duty rate could be varied in some areas to compensate. I hope that that suggestion gets a fair hearing from the Treasury.
We have heard from different Members from different areas about a variety of problems, but the fundamental issues are the same. I wish the Minister well in dealing with them, but judging by performance to date there remains a great deal to do.
3.6 pm
Miss Anne McIntosh: I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on securing the debate, and I congratulate all those who participated in it. I assure the Chamber of my continuing interest in transport: my husband works for an American airline company, which, I regret to say, does not have immediate plans to fly from Cornwall to the States. I also have interests in the Royal Automobile Club, Railtrack, Eurotunnel, British Airways, British Aerospace, and First Group plc. I hope that that qualifies me to speak today.
The personalities on the Front Bench may have changed since last year's debate on this topic, but the content does not appear to have changed greatly. Contrary to those who expressed surprise at the preponderant presence of Members from the south-west and Cornwall, I am delighted to note the number of Celts and Scots represented today. Perhaps that could form the new alliance in the House.
The main theme in the contribution of the hon. Member for St. Ives was parity of investment in public transport services. That is one of the themes that he explored last year, particularly as regards recognition of a public service obligation through possible public subsidies for air and sea services, such as those provided in Scotland. He did not rehearse the point that he made
286WH
last year on the objective 1 funds that Cornwall could use. Has progress been made on that? Representing as I do a constituency in north Yorkshire, I know that we look with some envy at objective 1 funds. We also look with envy at the Barnett formula, from which most of the possible subsidies to the ferry service in Scotland are paid—and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) referred to that. I will return to the public service obligation on ferry and air services later.
Like many Members present, I represent a deeply rural community, containing four market towns and a large part of the outskirts of York. We know that the price of fuel has soared under Labour, and that has affected all forms of transport, particularly bus users and motorists. It is of most pressing concern to the road haulage industry. We took soundings from our contacts in Cornwall, and their points reflected the content of this debate. The service is of poor quality, rail journey times must be improved and roads, particularly the A30, could do with being dualled. The delays at Goss moor were heavily underlined by contacts there.
It was also put forcefully to me that the transport difficulties mean that crops, fish and other products from Cornwall cannot get to the markets quickly enough. However, rather than a handout, people want sufficiently modern transport links. Funding a replacement for the Scillonian ferry was certainly of great interest to them. I will return to my personal campaign to improve short sea and coastal shipping. That may be a way forward, and the Minister might like to support it.
Fuel tax increased by 6 per cent. in the Government's first three Budgets. Indeed, in the third Budget, the increase for diesel was 12 per cent., giving the United Kingdom the highest fuel prices in Europe. Our priority must therefore be to improve public transport. It is interesting that the Liberal Democrats in general, and the hon. Member for St. Ives today, place great emphasis on improving public transport, yet in certain areas, where the obvious way forward is public-private partnerships, they notably oppose them.
Labour pledged in its 10-year transport plan to increase the number of passenger journeys by bus by 10 per cent. in England by 2010. Contrary to what other hon. Members have said, I think it important to note that bus usage has increased since privatisation, particularly in urban areas, although it has materially declined in rural areas under this Government. They must say what the reasons are for that. In 2001 in particular, bus use declined in every area apart from London, Birmingham and eastern England. My question for the Minister is why.
It is commonly believed, and I firmly believe, that Labour is letting rural communities down. The £50 million that I gather the Government provided for rural bus services is a paltry sum compared to the huge amounts taken from rural motorists in fuel tax. For many in rural areas, a car is a necessity, not a luxury. According to figures provided by the House of Commons, some 37 per cent. of households in rural areas have two cars, whereas 40 per cent. of households in London and inner-city areas have no cars. That shows the dependence on the motor car in rural areas.
Only 20 per cent. of the money going to rural bus services can support existing services; the rest must go to create new bus services. I think that all those of us who

287WH
represent rural areas recognise that rural bus services have been cut. Like many colleagues, I have had to write strong letters to the bus companies and the local authorities depending on sparsely—
Ms Drown: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Miss McIntosh: In view of the time, I am afraid that I will not be able to accommodate the hon. Lady on this occasion. I place on the record how disappointing we find it that bus services have been cancelled as a result of what could be seen as a lack of Government funds meeting the right targets.
Labour now appears to want to abolish the fuel duty rebate. It was the Conservatives who first proposed extending the fuel tax rebate to community transport in 1999, so we were delighted to see Labour belatedly adopt that policy in its 10-year transport plan—we can claim that as a Conservative achievement. In view of the Government's consultation, we should now like to know what the Government's proposals are for the future of the fuel duty rebate.
On rail investment, the 10-year transport plan promised that old standard rolling stock would be withdrawn by the end of 2004. Will the Government confirm that the 10-year transport plan targets for that will be met? We are also concerned whether existing track-side electricity supply will be powerful enough to run the proposed longer 12 to 15-carriage trains. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) raised the question of the reduced level of Virgin train services. What assessment have the Minister and the Government made of the impact of that reduction in services to the southwest and Cornwall on the local economy and employment prospects?
I should like to put on the record the fact that the reliability of train services has decreased. In 1997, one in 10 trains ran on time, but by 2002 the figure was one in five. The number of complaints from rail passengers recorded by the Rail Passengers Council last year rose by 146 per cent., so clearly all is not well on the railways.
We would like more freight to be moved by rail. We recognise the role that rail freight facility grants have played—the take-up of those grants for last year alone was £30 million. Will the Minister reassure me—and those who have put their concerns to me—that the rail freight facility grants will continue?
Will the Minister respond to the statement by the senior Government adviser, Richard Bowker, the Chairman of the Strategic Rail Authority, that the £33.5 billion of public money earmarked for the railways over the next 10 years is running out, and that the expansion of projects that have already been identified has been put on hold?
Will the Minister support my personal campaign to increase the quantity of goods transported in and around the UK on water? Does he share my regret that both the amount and volume of goods carried by coastal shipping decreased dramatically over the past five years, and that fewer of those goods are now carried by UK-flagged ships? Some 10 years ago, 46 per cent. of all freight carried on coastal shipping was carried by UK-flagged ships: that figure has now decreased to 16 per cent.
288WH
My final question to the Minister concerns public service obligations. In this Chamber, some two or three months ago, we had a discussion on whether the Government would create such public service obligations for air services between Inverness and London. The Minister has been asked today whether he will consider creating public service obligations for air and ferry services between Penzance and the Isles of Scilly. If he is prepared to consider that, could he tell us what the public sector spending obligations would be, and how they would be met?
3.17 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on securing the debate, some 12 months after he secured a similar debate. I notice that the players in the debate today are similar to those who were here before—I see some familiar faces.
The hon. Member for St. Ives said that it was a year since the previous debate, and that much had changed. I will tell him of three things that have changed, among many others. Local transport-planned funding in Cornwall has increased substantially. We have announced the cross-moor improvements, which I know will be welcome in his constituency, and the Dobwalls bypass, which is vital to his constituency and to Cornwall.
I was reading in my local newspapers last night—the Plymouth Evening Herald and the Western Morning News—both of which are excellent, that the Government were going to be pressed by eight Liberal Democrat Members from across Devon and Cornwall. It is unfortunate that only two of them have stayed to hear the summing-up. Perhaps that shows that one must be cautious when putting out a press release. If someone were being unkind, they might say that that information was a little like a Liberal Democrat publication of their "Focus" leaflets—about 25 per cent. accurate.
The hon. Member for St. Ives also congratulated the Government on the great improvements in rural public transport, and I thank him for his comments. I will respond later to some of the specific points that he raised, but before that I will respond to points made by other hon. Members. We will do as we did before, and respond in writing on any matter that is not covered this afternoon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton), who was present in the previous debate, raised the importance of air links. There is no doubt about the importance of air links to the peripheral areas of the country—in particular, the service to her area of Newquay. We had a useful and interesting cross-party meeting yesterday at which we discussed the matter. I hope that the temporary uncertainty will be resolved.
I remember lobbying on this issue some 10 years ago with the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and the then hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton. If my hon. Friend wants to head a delegation to see me on some of these matters, perhaps with the hon. Member for St. Ives—I know how well they co-operate on important issues concerning Cornwall—I should be happy to see her.

289WH
I share my hon. Friend's concern about the time of rail journeys. Penzance to Paddington is an exceedingly long journey, but reliability and predictability are important to passengers as well as the time a journey takes. People want to know that a four-hour journey does indeed take four, not five, hours. That is more important than slicing a few minutes off the journey time. It is unpredictability that people do not like.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), who serves a true island community, asked about car parking and planning. PPG13 sets out our policy on car parking. We want planning authorities to set out sensible local parking policies in rural areas. We have to find a balance between ensuring that traffic does not undermine and reduce the attractiveness of an area, and providing places for people to park, particularly where there is inadequate public transport. The hon. Gentleman needs to take up the issue with his local authority, as I am sure he has done. If he feels that our policy is not being implemented, I am sure he will come back to me or to the Deputy Prime Minister's Department.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who took part in the debate last year, made some good points, particularly about greater co-ordination between local authorities and bus providers. He would be interested to know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is now involved with the bus forum, which is bringing together all the players to co-ordinate many of the issues that my hon. Friend was talking about. I agree that they have been too dissipated and we need to bring those issues together.
My hon. Friend also referred to the weaknesses of deregulation under the Transport Act 1985. I can only agree with him. It was implemented by the party of the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). I take it from her remarks that she is critical of what happened at the time. The hon. Lady shakes her head. She is not critical of what happened at the time, despite saying that it destroyed the bus services in her area, which is interesting. The Transport Act 2000 addressed some of those issues, certainly in England, by introducing powers for quality bus partnerships and contracts. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud should look at how they operate in his area to see whether improvements can be made.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) is now sitting on the Front Bench for the Liberal Democrats. He was on the Back Benches last time. We have here hon. Members representing the two extremities of the United Kingdom, from the top of the Shetlands to the southern tip of the country at St. Ives. I do not want to bring party politics into the debate. I am not one to do that, as you know, Mr. Cook. The hon. Gentleman accepted that much had been done and then said that there was much to be done, which I accept. I wonder what he would have said if we had here one of the other Liberal Democrat Members from the south-west—perhaps the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws), who has been given the task by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor), the Treasury spokesman for the party, who was obviously given the job by his party leader, of finding £2 billion of spending cuts. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has thought that through; if there is £2 billion in spending cuts, some of which will fall on
290WH
transport, perhaps he should take us into his confidence a little and tell us whether that will affect any of the issues he has raised.
I cannot let go the many little gems in the hon. Member for Vale of York's contribution. I shall pick up one or two. She talked about short sea shipping. That is an issue we are very involved with and we can see great potential for the sea around our shores taking some traffic off the roads. The hon. Lady will know that we have provided freight facilities grants to enable freight to be carried on inland waterways, too, and off the road.
The hon. Lady referred to the decline of bus use but, for goodness' sake, it was her own party that brought in such legislation. I emphasise that this Government introduced some of the rural and urban bus challenge funding that has brought new money and services to many communities. We did not hear anything about that in her speech.
The hon. Lady referred to the United Kingdom flag and the number of ships plying the sea around the country. However, under this Government, we have seen a massive increase of tonnage under the UK flag. She shakes her head, but it has doubled over the past five years. Her party did nothing about it. We saw ships drift from our flag, but now we have seen a massive increase in their return. I know that the Liberal Democrats will have to find some cuts, but the hon. Lady's party has promised the people of this country a 20 per cent. cut in the budget. We shall be reminding her constantly where those cuts will fall. How will the cut be achieved? Which services will be cut? Which services will be reduced?
Miss McIntosh: The hon. Gentleman is putting words into my mouth. There will be cuts not to services, but to bureaucracy and red tape. There is a good illustration in the magazine of the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers this month showing how much transport carried by UK flag ships has decreased under his stewardship as the Minister with responsibility for shipping. Has he had a chance to read it?
Mr. Jamieson: Yes. I have regular contact with NUMAST and it recognises that the number of ships on the UK flag has increased substantially. I should be interested to know where such cuts in bureaucracy will be made to give a 20 per cent. increase. Why did such matters never happen during those 18 years? It sounds like a policy that one has the luxury of talking about in opposition, but that could never form part of a Government's policy.
I say to the hon. Member for St. Ives that the Government recognise the importance of better transport and economic social regeneration in rural areas, especially in his constituency. It is a long way from anywhere. It is a little like the Shetlands. It is a difficult place to access and in which to set up new businesses and industry. Transport plays a vital role in such matters. The hon. Gentleman has recognised the fact that we obtained objective 1 funding for Cornwall. Some years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne met the Prime Minister and talked through the matter. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend argued the case strongly for Cornwall and the United Kingdom. It was largely the intervention of

291WH
my hon. Friend and the Prime Minister that achieved the funding. I note that the hon. Member for St. Ives is nodding in agreement.
Andrew George: The Minister's response has not reflected the consensual approach that I thought I was taking. There was a certain rewriting of history in his latter remarks. Does he accept the fact—whether or not it be cross-party—that we are deeply worried about transport? Will he keep a close monitoring brief on the current bus service problems in Cornwall? Will he meet me to deal with links between the mainland and the Isles of Scilly?
Mr. Jamieson: Yes, I will. There is too little time left to deal with the latter point now. It is of such importance, so it would be better if we met with interested parties to discuss it. I accept his worries about the review of the bus services in Cornwall that is being carried out by First Group. I understand that it has stated publicly that its proposed new network will improve the quality and quantity of bus services. It will be up to Cornwall county council to hold First Group to its word and ensure that proper notice is given to people of any changes that take place. I understand that Cornwall will not be able to assess the budget implications of a re-tendering process or the result of the review until the beginning of February.
Cornwall has been particularly successful in bidding for money for buses. The hon. Gentleman made a point about us making an announcement on some of the rural bus challenge funding in about a fortnight. I will not make an announcement today, but certainly, the matter will be one our priorities.
There are points to which I have not replied., but I am willing to take them up with hon. Members in correspondence.

North Bristol Airport
3.30 pm
Mr. Steve Webb: Perhaps I may begin by sympathising with the Minister, who, I assume, will carry on and show himself to be a man of many talents by dealing with a different topic.
In many ways, the proposed north Bristol airport at Pilning is the dog that did not bark. With all the row and fuss about proposed new airports at Cliffe and Rugby, the possibility of one in north Bristol has somehow not managed to hit the headlines. Indeed, I was rather taken by surprise when the Secretary of State for Transport made a statement to the House last July about the consultation. He went through each of the regional papers and the possibility of a north Bristol airport was not even mentioned. That is not a criticism, just an observation. The airport was not deemed sufficiently important or likely to warrant mention in the oral statement. The possibility of a new airport at north Bristol was first mentioned on page 148 of the consultation document.
I should like a steer from the Minister on how serious a possibility that airport is. I have raised the matter with a number of people in my part of south Gloucestershire, and there have been two reactions. Some local residents, many of whom have written in response to the consultation document, have said that it would be a completely unsuitable place for an airport. As the Minister might expect, I shall suggest one or two reasons why they might be right. However, the other people to whom I have spoken have said, "Don't waste our time. It's so implausible. This was obviously just thrown in as an afterthought. It's a decoy for expansion somewhere else."
The Minister looks sceptical. I am glad to have this opportunity to ask him to put on the record the Government's approach to a north Bristol airport. Is the scheme a runner? Is it pie in the sky, or do the residents of Pilning and Severnside need to think seriously about it? In addition to the proposed north Bristol airport mentioned in the consultation document, a different group this week has proposed a Severnside airport on the other side of the Severn estuary and is putting plans before the Government. It would be helpful to have a steer from the Minister about what the response will be. I do not expect him to pre-empt a long consultation process, but the people I represent will be disappointed if he does not say something about how realistic some of those schemes are. Is the north Bristol airport a slim possibility, or are the Government taking the scheme very seriously? I hope he will at least tell us that.
Last year, the Secretary of State for Transport announced:
"The Government will next year publish a White Paper on air travel. As part of that, we will set out our concluded views on how much additional airport capacity is needed and where it should be sited."—[Official Report, 23 July 2002; Vol. 389, c. 847.]
It is fairly clear that when the White Paper comes out—and I appreciate that it has been delayed—it will be about not just "How much?" but "Where?" I gather that the most recent suggested date for the White Paper is autumn or perhaps slightly later. I am sure that the Minister will comment on that. It might be expected

293WH
that, when it comes out, the residents of Pilning and the greater area will be put out of their misery one way or another. I am pleased to see the Minister nodding at that suggestion; that is encouraging.
In the short time available, I do not propose to discuss the background to the entire consultation, or the modelling and projections. I should like to give the Minister a quick tour of Pilning and some idea as to why it might not be the right place to put an international airport. First, the runways might run from north to south through Pilning. As they fly in from the north, passengers will have a scenic view of Berkley power station. Further on, they will be able to have a nice look at Oldbury nuclear power station. So, just a few miles from the proposed site, they will pass one closed power station and one active nuclear power plant. Could the Minister clarify the current rules on flying over nuclear power stations? There is obviously heightened sensitivity because of 11 September, but what general constraints are there on flying over nuclear power plants? In this case, aeroplanes coming from the north would go near a nuclear power station. We all occasionally hear of tragic accidents in which aeroplanes come down just short of airports, and one gets very nervous when nuclear power plants are involved. One, therefore, worries about proposals to build an airport next to a nuclear power plant.
If the planes came from the south, they would pass the major chemical plants at Avonmouth and Severnside. Underground oil and gas stores and the gas-fired power station at Hallen are also very close to the proposed site. Again, those are not places over which we would want planes to fly.
Perhaps the idea is that the planes will fly east to west. However, they would then have to fly over the densely populated areas of north Bristol, such as Bradley Stoke, and perhaps over the new north field at Filton airport, which is used by BAE Systems. Some 2,000 houses are yet to be built there. One starts to wonder whether the proposed site is the best place for an airport.
Pilning, which is at the centre of all this, is a fairly small village with many rural characteristics. There are excellent views across the estuary, and the area is flat and level. I have never seen an otter there, but I am reliably informed—I have learned a lot about the habitat around Pilning in the past few months—that it is quite the place to be for an otter. I assure the Minister that we are also working on great crested newts. Seriously, however, part of the area is a site of special scientific interest, and areas of nature conservancy would have to be taken into consideration.
That green-belt site nestles among power plants, chemical works and heavily populated inland areas. Across the area, there are high-voltage, high-tension power cables that take power across the Severn estuary to Wales. Talking of going across to Wales, I can add that the old Severn bridge and the new second Severn crossing are within spitting distance of the proposed site. From my conversations with the authorities at Bristol's existing airport, I understand that the proximity of the bridges and of some of the higher inland areas may present real problems with using the site at Pilning.
The document says that there are considerable environmental implications of using such a greenfield site, because the damage could be considerable. The
294WH
area is also prone to flooding, so there are reservations about proposals to build thousands of houses there. Again, is that the sort of area in which we want to build an airport?
Building an airport at Pilning would result in massive urbanisation of a rural area. The consultation document refers to a car park that would hold 25,000 to 35,000 cars, so the area would never look the same again. The document also mentions 15,000 jobs. During Prime Minister's Question Time, I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) demand an airport for her area because of the regeneration that it would bring. However, page 140 of the consultation document states:
"in areas of low unemployment"—
such as south Gloucestershire—
"workers filling new vacancies are likely to be drawn from further afield and therefore additional housing may be needed."
Essentially, Pilning airport would not be about jobs for local people, but about massive urbanisation, massive house-building and a massive inward migration of labour. Claimant unemployment is 1 per cent. to 1.5 per cent. in my constituency, and the project would not bring much benefit to people in the area. Rather, it would cause a huge inward movement and urbanisation.
The flipside of Pilning airport is the end of Bristol airport. It is clear from the consultation document that Pilning will be viable only if Bristol airport shuts—I see that the Minister is nodding at that. Bristol airport is south of Bristol and much closer to areas that are in need of regeneration, such as south Bristol and Weston-super-Mare. Shutting that airport and bringing more jobs to overheated parts of south Gloucestershire cannot be right in terms of the Government's regeneration strategy.
We have two options. We could take the single runway option, which would offer limited extra capacity. Indeed, much more capacity could be created by expanding operations at Bristol and Cardiff and making greater use of other regional airports, with which the Minister will be familiar. The alternative is a multi-runway airport in the longer term, which, as the consultation document admits, would have vast environmental implications for a green-belt site.
On the viability of the site, page 153 of the document concedes:
"We would therefore expect a new site north of Bristol to be financially viable only if no new runway capacity is provided in the South East or the Midlands and if the existing site"
at Bristol "is closed." The Minister will not be surprised to learn that Bristol International airport is not a great fan of a new north Bristol airport. The private company that owns, runs and has put millions of pounds into upgrading Bristol airport—it has moved on a great deal in recent years—is not simply going to sit back and watch.
I have a genuine question for the Minister because I do not understand the proposed mechanism. Let us suppose that the Government give the go-ahead and say that north Bristol, or Pilning, is the right place for a new international airport and the way in which we can meet our 20-year or 30-year strategic objectives. What will happen to Bristol airport? Will the company just go on

295WH
running that airport until the new one comes on stream and it realises that it is losing money, shuts and goes away? Or will the company be invited to run the new site and shut its existing operation, in which case what will be done about the millions of pounds that have been put into that? I simply do not understand. If north Bristol airport will work only in the absence of south Bristol airport, by what process will we get from one to the other? Can the Minister clarify that?
I hope that he will mention the Severnside proposal that has been raised only this week. That would be on the other side of the estuary but would also have implications for the viability of Bristol airport. When I have consulted local residents, the possibility of using underused military sites has been mooted. I am not trying to use that idea to put an airport in someone else's back garden, but how well have the Government considered that proposal?
I have read previous debates that have taken place on the consultation during recent months and the Minister's comments in them. Quite understandably, to any Back-Bench constituency MP who says, "Don't put the airport near me", he has replied, "Well, where would you put it?" It is a perfectly reasonable question. I point out, however, that it is not only me as the hon. Member for Northavon who is saying that Pilning is not the right place for a new airport; the regional development agency has backed the expansion of Bristol and Cardiff airports rather than the building of a new north Bristol airport. South Gloucestershire council has set out a structure plan and a local plan, which north Bristol airport would violate, and has objected. My point is not just a local constituency one. In my judgment, there is potential for further expansion at Bristol and Cardiff airports. We could do much more on accessibility and transport, to make it easier to get to Bristol airport. More could be done with other south-west airports.
The consultation document makes the case for Pilning almost half-heartedly. It feels like an afterthought. There is no detailed assessment of it. For that reason, some people have asked why their time is being wasted even talking about the idea. Yet the Government consultation document is raising a village in my constituency as a possible airport site. My constituents want to know whether that is in the running or not. That is the key question.
To draw all my threads together, I believe that existing south-west airport sites have the capacity for expansion, especially if the transport infrastructure is improved. However, if another single site is sought, we should not choose a place that is a few miles from a nuclear power plant to the north and a few miles from chemical plants to the south, is in an area that high-power, high-voltage electricity runs across, is in the green belt and environmentally sensitive, has underground oil stores and gas plants on the doorstep, and is near areas of vast population, over which aeroplanes might end up flying. Pilning is a lovely place to live, but the worst possible place for an airport.
3.43 pm
Mr. Jamieson: This is my third scheduled debate in this Chamber today. I should perhaps congratulate myself on securing all those debates but instead, I
296WH
congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on securing a debate on an issue that is of concern to his constituents. There have been similar concerns in other constituencies since the consultation document on air services throughout the country was issued.
I am very pleased to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith) is here, keeping a careful eye, as always, on matters that relate to Bristol. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) also takes an interest in such matters.
The hon. Member for Northavon asked me whether I could give him a steer on the probability of a new airport. I am afraid that that question was a triumph of optimism. He will understand that I cannot comment on the merits of any one scheme because we are in a consultation period. The consultation is genuine; we are listening to people's views and weighing them up.
The hon. Gentleman asked how realistic the north Bristol airport proposals are. He is an academic, so he will know that one should carefully weigh matters up after listening to the various arguments, and that is what we are doing. The Department is receiving information all the time, and we will have to weigh it up most carefully in the coming months, before publication of the White Paper.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we will take seriously representations that are made. I assure him that we will. We are scrutinising all comments that are coming in; the process has started and will continue until the entire consultation is over.
I can give the hon. Gentleman a more positive answer on the White Paper. He asked whether it would address how much extra capacity is needed. He also asked whether we will address where any development will take place, and the answer is that we will, because it is clear—especially with the elongation of the process following the Gatwick appeal—that some properties are blighted. The more rapidly such decisions can be made—commensurate with proper consideration—the more helpful it is to those people in many parts of the country who are blighted. We have empathy for those people, which is why we do not want the process to last any longer than is absolutely necessary for proper scrutiny of the comments that are made.
The hon. Gentleman raised an important point about what would happen to Bristol airport if the new scheme were given the go-ahead, and I hope to be able to provide some clarification on that, although he will appreciate that it is a complex matter. Any decision on an airport is dependent on several factors—what may be happening in other parts of the country, for example, or recommendations that may have been made. I shall try to cover that point in some detail.
Air travel is a fact of modern life for both business and leisure. Last year, 50 per cent. of the UK population travelled by air at least once. In my parents' time, that would have been unheard of—even 20 years ago, the percentage would not have been so high. Our forecasts suggest that demand for air services will increase significantly over the next 30 years, from 180 million passengers per annum in 2001 to between 400 million and 600 million in 2030. Additional airport capacity will be required if that demand is to be met.

297WH
The Secretary of State has already made it clear that the one option not available is to do nothing. We have to ask the following question: do we carry on increasing the ability people have to fly—including the hon. Gentleman's constituents? If we are to increase capacity, we must address the important question of where people will fly from. It would be irresponsible of any Government not to do that: development would happen on a piecemeal basis, and there would be no structure or plan to what was being done.
That is why we are currently consulting on the future development of air transport across the UK. The consultation documents set out potential demand under a range of policy scenarios from facilitating growth to constraining growth. They also set out the airport and associated developments that would be required to meet demand under the different scenarios. The documents also set out the positive and negative impacts of each scenario and seek views on the arguments for and against airport development. All responses to the consultation will be taken seriously, and when the White Paper is produced we will need carefully to balance economic, environmental and social needs.
The hon. Gentleman raised some specific issues. South-west airports currently handle about 2.9 million passengers per annum. However, more than 5.3 million people whose journeys begin or end in the south-west—about 65 per cent. of the total—travelled by surface modes, predominantly road, to access air services outside the region. Of that leakage, as it is sometimes called, more than 4.1 million passengers went to Heathrow and Gatwick, although I believe that about 15 per cent. travelled to Birmingham to catch their flights.
Bristol airport is the largest international airport in the south-west, and it handled about 2.1 million passengers in 2000. In 2001 it experienced significant growth of about 26 per cent., following the decision of the no-frills carrier, Go, to base aircraft there, serving a wide range of business and leisure destinations. Similar growth is expected in 2002. Bristol is well placed to develop further as it serves a wide catchment for population and businesses—particularly for sectors that use air transport often, such as banking, finance, information and communications technology, and advanced engineering. Many of those industries have grown rapidly in the Bristol area.
Other airports in the south-west are much smaller than Bristol and are expected to grow to a lesser extent as they serve smaller catchments and smaller markets. Bristol is therefore likely to remain the primary airport for the south-west for the foreseeable future. I hope that what I have said partly answers the hon. Gentleman's questions. I shall move on to deal with the future.
By 2030, if current policies are continued—that is the so-called RASCO reference case scenario—demand for air services from the south-west airports could rise to 15.9 million passengers per annum, with around 8.6 million of those at Bristol. However, if it were decided to constrain capacity in the south-east—the south-east constrained scenario, as that policy is called—many of the 50 per cent. of passengers who currently travel to the south-east airports to use air services would no longer be able to do so. Some might not fly at all, but most would use other airports and there would be pressure to use airports in the south-west.
298WH
That clawback of passengers could mean that the total traffic through south-west airports would increase to nearly 28 million passengers a year by 2030, with around 13.4 million of those wanting to fly from Bristol. The hon. Gentleman may see that a strong argument could be made by people living in the south-west that they would want facilities that would obviate the need to travel to Birmingham or London to take business or leisure flights.
Our analysis suggests that Bristol airport could handle around 6 million passengers per annum from its existing runway, subject to the expansion of terminal facilities. With a runway extension and a second terminal, the airport's capacity could increase further—possibly to around 12 million passengers a year—although that would be subject to resolving constraints arising from important environmental, land, property take and surface access issues. Topographical constraints also make expansion beyond 12 million passengers per annum an unrealistic prospect.
If those issues can not be resolved, or if we seek to accommodate the higher demand forecast under the south-east constrained scenario, we would need to consider developing additional capacity at another site in the locality. Need would also be exacerbated if no new runway capacity were to be developed in the midlands. Additional capacity, in the form of new runways, will be required in the midlands by around 2015 under all the policy scenarios that provide for growth, irrespective of decisions on capacity elsewhere. We have therefore examined options for new runways at existing airports in the midlands, and an additional detailed study has been carried out on a new site. That included a site search and the drawing up of an airport plan, with appraisal of the impacts.
As the need for a new site in the south-west will emerge only towards the end of the forecast period under scenarios giving the highest levels of demand, and is highly dependent on decisions regarding major capacity constraints being imposed elsewhere, it was decided that a full study of the north Bristol airport was not justified at present. Instead, a less detailed appraisal of a new airport on a site previously proposed by a consortium—the so-called UK One proposal near Pilning—was assessed. That allowed a means of comparing the costs and broad impacts of building a new site in the Bristol area, including its possible impact on the existing airport.
The results of the analysis are set out in the consultation document. The site would be well connected, close to the M4, M5 and M49 motorways. It would therefore offer good surface access from many parts of the south-west, south Wales and further afield to the north and east. For all we know, people from Birmingham, the hon. Gentleman's old city, might even travel down to use it. It would be more easily accessible to a wider catchment area than is the existing airport, but the analysis suggests that a new site north of Bristol would be financially viable only if no new runway capacity were provided in the south-east or the midlands and the existing Bristol airport was closed. The building of a new site would have to be predicated on all those issues.
We have received several responses, including responses from relevant local authorities, regarding the potential for a new airport north of Bristol. We are

299WH
aware of concerns about the proximity of potentially hazardous installations, such as nuclear power stations and fuel storage facilities, as well as the impact on designated wildlife sites and the risk of flooding. Local concerns will be considered carefully in our analysis of the consultation responses and when we draft the White Paper.
Clearly, if the new Bristol airport proposal or any other significant development were to be taken forward in the White Paper, detailed plans would be drawn up, planning permission sought and an environmental impact assessment prepared. Detailed issues would have to be considered as part of the process. I am aware that the extended consultation will also extend the period of uncertainty for those who may be affected by the development.
Mr. Webb: Will the Minister clarify something? If the White Paper suggests that a new north Bristol airport is the way forward, do the Government have the power to shut Bristol airport? How would Bristol airport be closed in order to make the new Bristol airport viable?
Mr. Jamieson: If the White Paper suggested that a new site offered a viable option, there would still be many bridges to cross. The case would need a promoter, who would have to go through all the necessary processes, and market forces would then put pressure on Bristol airport. If such a decision were made, a lot of thinking would he needed over the next 20 or 30 years. There is a long way to go and views in the area may change over time. It is interesting that existing airports are backing some proposals for new airports in other areas, and some interesting reconfigurations of view may take place. It is difficult to answer the hon. Gentleman's question at the moment because so many things would have to happen before a new airport could be opened. Were Ito go further, I would be entering the realms of speculation.
Extending the consultation has afforded the opportunity to consider alternative schemes suggested as part of that process. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Severnside proposal, but I shall not go into detail on that because I would be straying from the subject of the debate. When we drew up the consultation documents, analysis of the initial scheme suggested that a new airport in the Severn estuary was unlikely to be commercially viable in its own right. However, we have just received a formal, detailed response from the scheme's proposers and have yet to analyse it in depth. Unfortunately, at this stage I cannot rule any options in and I cannot rule any options out—I have heard that somewhere before. We hope to publish the White Paper by the end of the year.
I appreciate how important this issue is to the hon. Gentleman's constituents. It is important for them to be able to access flights for business and leisure purposes, but there are other issues relating to blight and the environment. No decisions have been made and we shall carefully weigh up all arguments made during the consultation process. I dare say that some of what has been said today will help to inform that process.

The Euro
Mr. Frank Cook (in the Chair): Perhaps I should point out that this is a 30-minute Adjournment debate and that interventions are not normally permitted. However, I have been approached about one, with the agreement of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) and the Minister.
3.59 pm
Mr. Chris Bryant: I am delighted to have an opportunity—even though it is for only half an hour—to speak about one of the most significant issues that will face the United Kingdom in the next five to 10 years. We have had remarkably few debates about it in the House, and I can find no record of one in Westminster Hall since debates started taking place here, so this is a first.
The debate is about Government policy on the euro which, as I understand it, although the Minister may correct me later, is that it is right in principle for the UK to join the euro, but in practice certain economic tests—the famous five—must be met, because it would not be a good idea for Britain to choose to join the euro if it could be proved that it would not be in our economic interest. A decision on those economic tests will be made by the end of June, within the first half of this Parliament, as promised in the Labour manifesto. Thereafter, depending on the result of the evaluation, there should be a referendum.
I believe passionately and wholeheartedly that a referendum should be held soon, primarily because the UK economy is suffering from two problems. The first, and more obvious, is our economic isolation. Over the past few weeks, we have heard from nearly every senior figure in the tourism industry about the effect that Britain's isolation from the euro is already having. We are losing between 2 per cent. and 5 per cent. of international travel: American travellers have decided not to come to the UK as well as to avoid the eurozone, many British travellers choose to go abroad and many eurozone travellers decide not to come to the UK because of the high cost of the pound and the uncertain cost of their visit.
Some may sneer at the importance of the tourism industry, but it is the fourth largest employer in the United Kingdom. In certain regions, in particular in Wales, it is the third largest. It is the fifth largest industry in terms of gross domestic product. If we consider the manufacturing industry—I represent a constituency in which the main source of manufacturing is long gone, because the last mine closed in 1990—we find that yesterday's figures from the GM B make it clear that we are still haemorrhaging jobs.
Many of the businesses that move their operations out of this country and into places that are about to be part of the eurozone, in particular to the candidate countries of the European Union, cite at the top of their list of reasons for moving the fact that Britain has as yet no commitment to joining the euro. That leaves them with great uncertainty as to the value of their product and their labour costs so, for their own economic reasons, they go elsewhere. The isolation of the UK from the euro is, therefore, already a significant problem for jobs.

301WH
That isolation is also significant for trade. The UK is, by its nature, a trading nation. We rely more heavily on trade than nearly any other member of the EU. However, we are now posting our worst trade deficit since records began in 1697, while the eurozone countries ran a current account surplus of €5.2 billion in the second quarter of 2002. In case anyone is wondering why 1697 is important, it was the year in which Daniel Defoe wrote "An Essay upon Projects". That is when income tax was first mooted to the United Kingdom and it was the first time that there was a Whig Administration. That Administration laid down that the poor must wear badges to identify them. We have significant trade problems if we are posting our worst deficit since 1697.
That is the isolation problem. However, there is another problem—uncertainty. That goes to the heart of why we need to have a referendum at an early date with a positive vote for joining the euro. We have already seen that inward investment is falling, whereas it is rising in the eurozone countries. I also worry about the game of catch-up that we shall have to play. There will be 10 new members of the EU in 2004, many of which have already declared their heartfelt desire to join the euro as well as the EU.
There is a problem with Britain delaying even longer its decision to join the euro. If Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic join the euro over the next three to five years, Britain will end up having to negotiate its entry rate—which is key to the economic benefits or disadvantages of joining—with the Prime Ministers of Poland and the Czech Republic.
We should not be playing catch-up but learning the lessons of the past and ensuring that we are wholeheartedly at the centre of European policy. Incidentally, it is important to note that the stability pact will be renegotiated and tidied up over the next year or two, perhaps in line with the suggestions that the Chancellor has already made. If that is the case, it is essential for the UK to be part of those negotiations, not excluded from them.
Mr. Wayne David: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Bryant: Of course.
Mr. Frank Cook (in the Chair): Order. I made it clear at the start that this is a 30-minute debate. The interventions must be agreed beforehand. That intervention was not agreed.
Mr. Bryant: I apologise. I had not understood that rule of the Chamber. I thought that it applied only to speeches, and that interventions could be taken at any point in a half-hour debate.
Llew Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Cook. I have a limited command of the English language, but this is meant to be a debate. I understand that only three people will be allowed to participate in the debate, but they are all singing from the same hymn sheet.
Mr. Bryant: I have no intention of singing, as hon. Members will be delighted to hear.
Mr. Frank Cook (in the Chair): Order. I must point out to everyone in the Chamber that the time already
302WH
taken is time out of a 30-minute Adjournment debate. The agreement was made beforehand, and my ruling stands.
Mr. Bryant: Before I was not interrupted, I was referring to the uncertainty and instability that the UK faces because it is outside the euro. Those are powerful reasons why it is in the UK's interests to join, and to join soon and resolutely. One need only think philosophically about certain issues facing UK businesses such as Burberrys, which happens to be based in the Rhondda. When Burberrys manufactures a cashmere jumper or scarf and chooses the price at which it wishes to sell it in the eurozone, it must make complicated decisions about what its profit margin will be.
There are the costs of exchanging between one currency and another, which most businesses estimate at about 5 per cent., as well as the uncertainty about what price one may eventually get because of variations in the exchange rate. The exchange rate between sterling and the euro has fluctuated more than it did before the euro came fully into being a year ago. In the future, such currency fluctuation may be more, rather than less, dangerous and troublesome for the pound. That cost erodes British businesses and potential profit, and makes it more troublesome for UK businesses to trade in the eurozone. It also makes many businesses, especially the smaller ones, which are the lifeblood of the UK economy, decide to go into the wider market and trade. As I said, 5 per cent. of businesses' profits are lost to the cost of exchange. There is also the possibility of their entire profit being wiped out because of currency fluctuation.
In addition, European businesses must make a decision about whether they will invest in the UK.
4.9 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.21 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Bryant: We have had no interventions, but one interruption, and we may yet have another.
I talked at some length of the instability and uncertainty besetting the UK economy which is linked to our staying outside the euro. However, there are many nay-sayers in the country, and some are gathered in the Chamber today. The nay-sayers mainly tell us to look at what is happening to Germany's economy. They say that the fact that Germany's unemployment is growing and that it has economic problems is self-evident proof that the euro is not working, and it would therefore be bad for the United Kingdom.
The nay-sayers are sometimes rather selective in their quoting of economic statistics. If the euro were the primary cause of Germany's economic problems, all the other countries in the eurozone would be suffering exactly the same problems, and the trends in the countries outside the eurozone would be exactly the opposite of those inside. However, it is predicted that Sweden and Denmark—both outside the eurozone—will have lower growth than the UK this year, so being

303WH
outside the euro does not necessarily lead to higher growth. Some of the other economic statistics for Germany show that its situation is not quite as the nay-sayers portray it. Wages and productivity are considerably higher in Germany than they are in the United Kingdom.
If one looks at unemployment figures across the eurozone, one finds that there has been a fall in all those countries since 1998 which is rather similar to the fall in unemployment in the United Kingdom. In the eurozone as a whole, the figure has fallen from 10.2 per cent. to 8 per cent. In France it has fallen from 11.4 per cent. to 8.6 per cent., and in Germany from 9.1 per cent. to 7.8 per cent. It is difficult to attribute precisely the rights and wrongs of the economic situation in Germany to the euro.
The nay-sayers also frequently say that the very process of joining the euro inexorably leads to inflation. Many people in Greece and in Spain believe that, and there has been significant inflation in those countries in the past year. However, inflation in eurozone countries has not done what many people predicted. Inflation last year was 1.8 per cent. in France, 1.3 per cent. in Germany and 1.1 per cent. in Belgium. In several eurozone countries, inflation is lower than it is in the United Kingdom, so there is not necessarily a link between inflation and joining the euro. When Britain joins the euro—a significant majority in the UK believe that we will eventually do so—it will be important to ensure that anti-inflationary measures such as maintaining dual billing in pounds and euros are in hand in the two years or so before and after joining. That is an important part of preventing inflation.
The third thing that the nay-sayers state frequently is that a single interest rate for the whole of Europe, including Britain, would be inimical to its future economic development and stability. However, the United States of America has a single interest rate and so, for that matter, does the United Kingdom, different unemployment rates in London, Glasgow, Newcastle, Manchester and Cardiff and the fact that few people move from area to area to seek employment. Not many of the nay-sayers suggest that Wales or Scotland should have a separate interest rate.
The economic tests that are central to the Government's policy on the euro are vital. Of course, we should never recommend joining the euro unless it is in Britain's economic interests, unless there is significant convergence and unless it is in the interests of UK jobs and inward investment. There should be sufficient flexibility in the UK economy and in the euro system to allow for significant growth. However, we should not assume that a negative assessment of the tests in June would be risk free; it would do significant harm to the UK just by itself, politically and economically. It would signal a lack of confidence about the UK's economic future and signify to inward investors and to trading partners that Britain had economic problems.
Britain's economy is strong now thanks to the many tough decisions that the Government have taken since 1997. But its economic future could be stronger, and it will have to be stronger within the euro if it is to withstand the dangers of greater exchange volatility. Let us avoid instability and uncertainty by having a
304WH
referendum as soon as possible, and let us avoid economic isolation by securing a yes vote in that referendum.
4.27 pm
Mr. Kevan Jones: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) on securing the debate. I will concentrate on the effect of not adopting the euro on the economy of the north-east, especially the manufacturing industry.
The north-east has a long tradition of manufacturing industry. At one time, it was part of the workshop of the world. Today, the industry is smaller but clearly efficient and high tech. Manufacturing industry in the north-east accounts for 20 per cent. of the region's economy, employing some 175,000 people. Proportionately, the north-east is the largest exporter of manufactured goods in the UK, and that is where the problem lies, because the region is not part of the eurozone. Last year, the north-east lost just under 5,000 jobs in manufacturing, not because the smoke-stack industries were inefficient but because of the strong value of the pound and because it is outside the eurozone. Some people might ask why that should matter, as service sector jobs will fill the gap, but manufacturing jobs are important for skills and employment, not just in the north-east but throughout the country. They are skills that the country cannot afford to lose.
I have already mentioned that the manufacturing industry in the north-east is efficient, and I want to draw on the example of the Nissan motor corporation in Sunderland. Not only is the car plant the most efficient in Europe, it is one of the most efficient at producing motor cars anywhere in the world, outstripping some indigenous plants in Japan. I find it remarkable that the recent decision to build the Micra car in Sunderland was taken at a hair's breadth, despite a large Government grant and a 30 per cent. efficiency lead over any other European car plant. Last week, a story appeared in The Northern Echo that the decision to produce the Almera and Primera models in Sunderland is in doubt because of the strong value of the pound. The plant's competitive advantage, which has been clearly demonstrated, is wiped out at a single stroke by the strong value of the pound and by Britain being outside the eurozone.
What is the problem? What are people afraid of? There is the paranoia about loss of sovereignty, and we have the great and interesting debate about whose head should be on our currency. I agree with Sir Ian Gibson, the chair of Nissan UK, who said:
"Why can't we just as a nation rise above it all? We're not anchored off the east coast of the US, but off the western coast of Europe…we cannot be anything else but European."
The competitive advantage of UK manufacturing is being lost because we are wedded to an outdated notion that this country's destiny lies somewhere other than in Europe. Manufacturing jobs in the north-east and the rest of the UK continue to be in crisis because we remain outside the eurozone. While the values of the euro and the pound remain worlds apart, we will continue to see a loss of manufacturing jobs not only in the north-east, but across the country. The only way to stop that decline is by joining the eurozone at a realistic rate as a matter of urgency. My message is that joining the eurozone will be good news for the manufacturing industry in this country and for the UK and the north-east economies.
4.32 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): May I say, Mr Cook, that it is an additional pleasure being under your chairmanship for the second time today?
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) on securing this important debate, and I notice the interest shown by other Members, which indicates a strong and correct concern with the issues. I also congratulate my hon. Friend on his recent election to the chair of Britain in Europe, and I am sure that he will make a valuable contribution to the debate in the coming months.
First, I want to restate the Government's policy on UK membership of the single currency, which remains unchanged. In his June 2002 Mansion House speech, the Chancellor said:
"In principle British membership of a successful single currency offers us obvious benefits—in terms of trade, transparency, costs and currency stability—and could help us create the conditions for higher and more productive investment and greater trade and business in Europe."
More than half our total trade is with the European Union, and about 3 million jobs depend on our economic ties with Europe. The EU is the UK's largest trade and investment partner. The Government are in favour of UK membership of European monetary union in principle, but we will recommend UK membership only if it is in the national economic interest and the economic case for joining is clear and unambiguous. The Government believe that if that is the case, there is no constitutional bar to joining. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda summed it up neatly by saying that in principle it is right and in practice the economic conditions must be met.
As the Chancellor said in his October 1997 statement to the House, the five economic tests will define whether a clear and unambiguous case can be made. In that same statement, the Chancellor set out the five tests, which are: whether there can be sustainable convergence between Britain and the economies of a single currency; whether there is sufficient flexibility to cope with economic change; whether there is an impact on investment, which my hon. Friend highlighted; whether there is an impact on the financial services industry; and whether joining is good for employment.
I note with interest the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), and I know the interest that he takes in the manufacturing industry in his constituency and across the north-east. However, the five tests provide a framework for robustly analysing the decision on economic and monetary union. As the Chancellor said in his Mansion House speech:
"To join without a proper, full assessment of the five tests could…prejudice our stability, risk repeating past failures of exchange rate management, and could return us to the days of stop-go at the expense of our ambitions for high investment, full employment and high and sustained levels of growth."
I was heartened to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda put such emphasis on the economic factors. There is a serious economic debate to be had. The Government have consistently made it clear that the Treasury will complete an assessment of the five tests within two years of the start of this Parliament. We
306WH
remain fully committed to doing so. On the basis of their assessment, the Government will decide whether the five tests have been met. If the Government decide to recommend joining, that decision will be put to a vote in Parliament and then to a referendum of the British people.
I turn now to the preliminary and technical work that will inform the assessment of the five economic tests. As the Chancellor noted in his November pre-Budget report:
"The preliminary analysis supporting the five tests assessment—technical work needed to enable the assessment to be completed within two years of the start of the Parliament—is well underway."
Hon. Members will be aware of the detailed paper on the preliminary and technical work that was produced by the Treasury for the Treasury Committee in September. A copy may be found in the Library. That paper built on the Chancellor's June 2002 Mansion House speech, and stated that a number of supporting studies would be published alongside the assessment, encompassing the preliminary and technical work. The supporting studies will cover key issues that relate to particular tests or that apply to more than one test. The paper for the Treasury Committee makes it clear that, when the assessment is complete, the detailed supporting studies will be published alongside it, and that everything will be subject to intensive public scrutiny and debate. I am sure that there will be much material in that preliminary and technical work when the assessment is published. It will take pundits and academics a long time to digest that material, which will provide much food for debate and comment in the months following publication.
On practical preparations, since 1999 the Government's strategy has been to prepare and then to decide. That work has included the publication of two outline national changeover plans and regular updates on the detail of changeover planning. Most recently, the sixth report on euro preparations was published in July last year. The Government are maintaining their commitment to prepare and decide. By planning now, the United Kingdom could make a smooth and cost-effective changeover should the Government, Parliament and the people, in a referendum, decide to join the single currency.
The introduction of euro cash in the euro area took place on 1 January 2002. The Government are pleased that the euro area countries experienced a broadly smooth changeover. The UK has taken the opportunity to monitor and learn from the experience in the euro area during the changeover. The findings have been published in the sixth report on euro preparations, and have now been reflected in the UK's own preparatory work.
For example, following the euro area's experience of a two-month dual currency period, we should, in the event of the UK joining the single currency, be able to adopt a dual currency period of no more than two months. That is less than our original estimate of six months for dual circulation.
We also work closely with consumer representatives in the voluntary sector to develop a communications strategy in case we decide in a referendum to join a single currency—to establish some of the issues about which

307WH
my hon. Friend talked, such as scale of value, to establish ways to protect consumers, and to think about communications strategies for vulnerable groups that would have more difficulty coming to terms with a change of currency than other citizens.
The Government are committed to working with UK businesses to secure the right level of preparation that would enable them to work with the euro now. It is obvious that in many respects the euro is already operating in the eurozone and businesses in Britain have to come to terms with that, whatever their views on the merits of the UK joining the euro. The existence of the euro in the eurozone has implications for those businesses, and that should be reflected in their strategies.
The Treasury euro website has had more than a million visitors since its relaunch in March 2001. The Government have distributed more than 400,000
308WH
factsheet packs and they have sent information to around 1.5 million small and medium-sized enterprises, first in autumn 2001 and then in autumn 2002. The Government have produced, and recently updated, a wide portfolio of simple, practical business case studies, and they operate a national telephone helpline for those without access to the website, which provides businesses and travellers with practical information about the euro. Although such information has helped many businesses to address issues posed by the euro, our surveys suggest that many more could be affected.
We continue to work closely with the business community to provide it with the practical advice and assistance that it needs. Hon. Members are able to see that we take seriously the assessment of the five economic tests and, were we to make a positive assessment and were there to be a positive referendum result, we must be in a position to join—
It being nineteen minutes to Five o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

CABINET OFFICE

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the distribution of his Department's whole-time equivalent staff was, including the staff in agencies and other bodies reporting to him, in each Government office region and nation of the UK(a) in 1996 and (b) at the most recent available period. [90467]

  Mr. Alexander
  The numbers of staff in each Department (including its agencies) are shown in tables, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of the House. The figures show the data at the 1 April each year, and are based on the full-time equivalent figures for the number of permanent staff in each Department, rounded to the nearest 10. Data are shown by Government Office Region, with columns giving the total number of staff in England and the UK.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Westminster Hall
  Janet Anderson
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission if he will make a statement on his plans for Westminster Hall. [89869]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  The Commission has no plans for Westminster Hall. It has, however, been aware of growing pressure for the better welcome and reception of constituents and other visitors to the Palace of Westminster and to give them a better understanding of the work of Parliament. The Commission agrees with the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons that a Visitor Centre would be desirable; such facilities are provided in many other Parliaments around the world. We therefore commissioned a feasibility study from the consultants Haley Sharpe and the conservation architects Purcell Miller Tritton. That study reviewed options for the siting of such a centre, and proposed a scheme consisting of a new security/reception building at the western end of the Jubilee Cafe and elements of a Visitor Centre in the accommodation outside the west wall of Westminster Hall, with the option of providing further facilities in Victoria Tower Gardens.

  The Commission considered the consultants' report, recognised the sensitivity of the Westminster Hall location, and asked the consultants to carry out further studies of possible sites outside the Parliamentary Estate. In due course the Commission will consider the results of these studies, together with the views of the Modernisation and Finance and Services Committees, the Domestic Committees, the Speaker's Advisory
  608W
  Committee on Works of Art, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association United Kingdom Branch, the Inter-Parliamentary Union British Group and individual hon. Members. Any final decision would need to be agreed with the authorities of the House of Lords.

  Doorkeepers
  Mr. Peter Pike
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what the main differences are between the pay and conditions of employment of the newly recruited doorkeepers of the House and those employed under the previous system; and if he will make a statement. [90123]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  The main difference between the conditions of employment of doorkeepers recruited since March 1998 and those employed before that date is their substantive pay band. This followed the Staff Inspector's review of the doorkeepers (completed in April 1997). I have asked the Director of Finance and Administration to write to the hon. Member with more detail.

  Line of Route
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what estimate he has made of the number of hon. Members whose constituents could gain access to the line of route, including the House of Commons, on a Wednesday(a) in 2002, and (b) in 2003, having travelled by public transport (i) without and (ii) with the use, where eligible, of railway Network cards. [89777]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  In 2002, 42 Wednesday mornings were available for tours and approximately 600 visitors a day were accommodated. In 2003, it is estimated that 41 Wednesday mornings will be available for tours and that 740 constituents a day could have access to the Line of Route, with a further 1,200 on Wednesday afternoons during Adjournments. This greater throughput is possible due to a more efficient operation following the creation of the Central Tours Office.

  It is not possible to forecast the impact of railway network cards, but for guidance, groups would need to arrive at the Palace by 9.15 am on Wednesdays to complete a tour which includes the Chamber. Access to the Line of Route is available on tours booked with the Central Tours Office until 1200 on Wednesdays, although these tours exclude the House of Commons Chamber.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission how many hours per week the Line of Route(a) was open before the change in working hours of the Commons and (b) is open after the change in working hours of the Commons. [90258]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  The Line of Route was open for the following hours per week before the change in sitting hours:

  in a week with a non-sitting Friday: 17 hours 30 minutes,

  in a week with a sitting Friday: 11 hours 30 minutes.

  609W
  Following the change in sitting hours of this House, and the decision of the House of Lords to sit on Thursday mornings, the Line of Route is now open:
  in a week with a non-sitting Friday: 10 hours 40 minutes plus 5 hours 20 minutes of Line of Route not including the Chamber.
  in a week with a sitting Friday: 4 hours 40 minutes plus 5 hours 20 minutes of Line of Route not including the Chamber.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Water Charges
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what protection there is for consumers against overcharging by water companies. [89537]

  Mr. Morley
  The Director General of Water Services (Ofwat) regulates water and sewerage charges by setting a limit on the average increase in charges that a company can impose in any year. Companies may only charge households in accordance with charges schemes approved by Ofwat. In exercising his powers the Director General seeks to ensure that there is no undue preference or undue discrimination in the fixing of charges.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what requirements are placed on water companies on explaining charges to customers when compiling customer invoices. [89560]

  Mr. Morley
  Water companies must set out the basis on which they set their charges in charges schemes, which require annual approval by the Director General of Water Services (Ofwat). Charges schemes are available from companies free on request. Water companies have changed the presentation of customers' bills to meet comments from Ofwat and WaterVoice.

  Carbon Emissions
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to measure carbon emissions from the(a) farming and (b) food industries. [87266]

  Mr. Meacher
  As a signatory to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol, the UK is required annually to compile an inventory of emissions by sources and removals by sinks of the greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol.

  The main greenhouse gases emitted from farming are methane from enteric fermentation in livestock and agricultural waste disposal, and nitrous oxide from fertiliser use. There are also emissions of carbon dioxide from agricultural energy use and liming of soils. Emissions are calculated from agricultural data including animal numbers and fertiliser usage produced by DEFRA, energy statistics from DTI, plus factors to relate these data to actual emissions. The data are recorded in the UK greenhouse gas inventory and show that overall emissions from agriculture fell by about
  610W
  11.5 per cent. between 1990 and 2000. Agriculture also contributes to emissions from land use change, which fell by about 20 per cent. over the same period.

  Greenhouse gas emissions for the food industry are not identified separately in the inventory, although they are included with other industrial emissions. Separate studies undertaken by my Department suggest that end user carbon dioxide emissions from energy use in the food industry fell by about 25 per cent. over the period 1990 to 2000. This includes the food industry's share of emissions at power stations due to electricity generation, and it is the fall in power station emissions due to fuel switching that is main reason for the decrease in emissions from this sector.

  Departmental Expenditure (Newsprint)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total expenditure of her Department was on newspapers, magazines and periodicals. [90524]

  Alun Michael
  The Department's expenditure on newspapers, periodicals and magazines in the financial year 2001–02 was £127,470. This figure covers central purchasing through Defra's library services. This excludes the costs of newspapers, periodicals and newspapers purchased in Defra local offices and in the Department's Executive Agencies. These figures could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  Farm Business Advice Service
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farmers were assisted by the Farm Business Advice Service in the last 12 months. [90395]

  Mr. Morley
  Between January and December 2002 the Farm Business Advice Service for farmers in England has received 3,011 requests. A total of 2,895 first visits have taken place and 2,739 action/whole farm recovery plans have been completed.

  Flooding
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what effect the operations of the Environment Agency have had on the levels of flooding in the Medmenham area and Marlow. [89762]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]: Rainfall over the final days of December and the beginning of January was close to the average for the whole month of December. This fell on a saturated catchment in which rivers were already running bankfull. Under these circumstances, there is little that can be done by the Agency to alleviate flooding if defences are not already in place. Early indications are that this was the third most severe floods in this area since records began in 1882, being exceeded only by the floods of 1894 and 1947. In recent years, the Agency has conducted public awareness campaigns to make those at risk aware of that risk and to provide information and advice on how people can help themselves. In this instance, the Agency takes the view that their operations will have had no adverse effects on river levels either in Medmenham or Marlow.
  611W
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what effect the Jubilee River relief scheme has had on flooding in the Medmenham area and Marlow. [89763]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]: The Jubilee River provides flood relief for Maidenhead, Windsor and Eton and several smaller villages nearby. Extra flood defences in the form of flood banks were constructed in Cookham to reduce the risk to this village. Marlow is 5 km upstream of Cookham and Medmenham further upstream and., as such, the Environment Agency takes the view that the Jubilee River has no impact, adverse or otherwise, on either community.

  Foot and Mouth
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list sites in Essex where there is storage of(a) materials that could be contaminated by foot and mouth and (b) the products of the cattle slaughtering exercise undertaken as part of the foot and mouth control strategies. [88533]

  Mr. Morley
  The answer is as follows:

  (a) The Department is unaware of any sites in Essex where materials are stored that could be contaminated with the foot and mouth disease (FMD) virus. The last case of FMD in Essex was 20 months ago, in April 2001. The FMD virus survival period in environmental samples is believed to fall below infective levels well within this period and therefore the risk of FMD contamination in materials is negligible.

  (b) The only residues from cattle slaughtered during the FMD outbreak remaining on sites in Essex is pyre ash. This has been buried in accordance with DEFRA/Environment Agency guidance at four locations in Essex. These are sites on land at:

  (1) East Donyland, Colchester

  (2) Warley Street, Brentwood

  (3) North Fambridge, Chelmsford

  (4) Wethersfield, Braintree

  Details of the groundwater authorisations and locations of these sites can be found on the Environment Agency website.

  GM Crops
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many public meetings her officials have spoken at on the subject of genetically modified food and crops in each year since 1999; how many reports of such meetings have been written up by her officials; and if she will place copies of them in the Library. [86171]]

  Mr. Meacher
  On the specific issue of the Farm Scale Evaluation GM Crop trials, officials have spoken at public meetings organised either by the Department, or by parish councils in parishes where the trials were to take place. There were 14 such meetings in 2000, 15 in 2001 and five in 2002; none were held in 1999. Notes were produced by officials for 11 of these meetings. Copies will be placed in the Library. Officials have also 612W
  spoken on wider GM issues at a number of other public meetings since 1999, but official records on the number of, or reports of, the meetings are not kept.

  Poultry Meat Export Ban
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she will take to assist the UK hen processing industry in response to the Nigerian Government's ban on the import of frozen poultry meat; and what efforts are being made to ensure the speedy resumption of UK poultry meat exports to Nigeria. [88863]

  Mr. Morley
  Officials have pursued through the British High Commission the prospects of reopening the Nigerian market and an EU delegation has recently met Nigerian authorities. Our information is that there may be some scope for recommencing exports although officials here have asked the industry to check this through their trade contacts in Nigeria. Depending on the outcome of those inquiries, Defra officials are ready to make further inquiries through the British High Commission in Nigeria.

  Officials are also liasing with industry contacts about alternative methods of disposing of hen carcasses.

  Horse Passports
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the proposed horse passports scheme will allow the horse owner to opt not to sell the carcase for human consumption; whether such a declaration would last for the life of the horse; what restrictions are planned with regard to such animals being slaughtered in a normal abattoir; and if she will make a statement about horse passports. [89758]

  Mr. Morley
  The horse passport includes a declaration to be signed by the owner about whether or not the horse is intended for human consumption.

  If the owner declares that the horse is not intended for human consumption then the carcase cannot go for human consumption. Such a declaration, once made, cannot be changed during the lifetime of a horse. It is possible to change a declaration that a horse is intended for human consumption to say that the horse is not now intended for human consumption. Such a horse could not then be slaughtered for the human food chain.

  The proposed changes in the legislation relating to horse passports contain no changes to the legislation governing where horses may be slaughtered.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much illegal meat imports in weight were seized by customs officials at United Kingdom ports of entry in each year from 1995 to 2001. [87327]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply. Currently, the lead responsibility for detecting illegal imports of meat lies with Local and Port Health Authorities and Defra. Customs support and co-operate with these lead agencies both in joint exercises and by
  613W
  seizing illegal meat when discovered in Customs checks. The Government has announced that all activity against smuggling of meat, animal products fish and plant matter will be brought together in Customs. Work on arrangements to effect this transfer has begun.

  Central records of Customs seizures of meat are only available from 2000. Weights recorded as seized by Customs in years ending 31 March are:

  Year

  Metric Tons

  2000–01

  2.655

  2001–02

  9.780

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to raise the awareness of restrictions she has enforced on meat imports. [87736]

  Mr Morley
  We have an ongoing campaign to highlight to travellers the risks posed by illegal imports. This has already used a variety of methods, including posters, leaflets, information videos, and interviews. Future publicity highlights include having a DEFRA presence at "Destinations 2003" and "The Holiday Show 2003". Our publicity campaign remains under constant review.

  Specifically to highlight the new rules, the poster detailing the personal allowances for personal imports of plant and animal products is being updated to reflect the new stricter EU rules on personal imports. It will be displayed at ports of entry into the UK and aimed at travellers arriving from outside the EU.

  We are continuing to work with our posts and embassies abroad to raise awareness of our import rules at points of departure.

  Job Sharing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the extent of job sharing in her Department. [90873]

  Alun Michael
  There are currently 83 people employed in Defra on a job share contract. Although vacant positions are not generally advertised on such a specific basis, applications are always welcomed from those wishing to work on a part-time or job share basis. It is departmental policy, as an equal opportunity employer, to meet requests for all types of flexible working, including part-time working and job sharing, wherever the nature of the work allows.

  Private Sewers
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions have taken place in the last six months between departmental officials and the Director General of OFWAT on the issue of the adoption of private sewers, with particular reference to the next price round. [89671]

  Mr. Morley
  OFWAT is involved in the steering group managing the work to establish the number, age, extent and condition of private sewers being undertaken by WS Atkins for my Department. This will contribute 614W
  to a consultation exercise on private sewers due to commence in the spring of 2003. Once the steering group has considered the response to that consultation, WS Atkins will then produce a final report, with recommendations. OFWAT will consider any effect on water bills as part of its periodic review of water price limits.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what difficulties have been encountered by W. S. Atkins and her Department in identifying the location and the state of repair of private sewers; and what progress has been made. [89675]

  Mr. Morley
  W. S. Atkins have carried out a number of field studies at locations in England and Wales to validate the information contained in the postal surveys they undertook to try to establish the number, age, extent and condition of private sewers. A consultation paper will be issued by the Department in the spring which will contain the outcome of this work, including any difficulties they have discovered, and will seek views on possible solutions.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what studies she has commissioned into the Voluntary Initiative programme to minimise the environmental impact of pesticides; what the terms of reference are; which body has been commissioned to undertake the studies; what the anticipated cost to the Department is; when she expects to receive the results; when they will be published; and if she will make a statement. [86748]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 December 2002]: The Government are committed to minimising the adverse environmental impact of pesticide use, consistent with adequate crop protection. A voluntary agreement on measures to reduce the environmental damage caused by pesticides was entered into by the industry and other stakeholders in April 2001. Provided the Voluntary Initiative is fully implemented, it should reduce the environmental impacts of pesticides and the Government remain committed to this approach. However, the Government are carrying out further work and analysis on a possible tax or other economic instrument, should the Voluntary Initiative fail to deliver its objectives within a reasonable timescale.

  The study referred to in the question has not yet been commissioned. Officials are in the process of commissioning work to develop a framework to enable subsequent assessment of the Voluntary Initiative. This will complement the indicators and targets put together by the Voluntary Initiative Steering Group and will, in particular, enable a comparison of the environmental benefits of the Voluntary Initiative and of a possible pesticides tax. The study is intended to he completed by the summer and will subsequently be published.

  Pollution (Bassenthwaite)
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will instruct English Nature to prepare a report on the health, breeding and distribution of brown trout, sea
  615W
  trout, salmon and other fish resident in Bassenthwaite Lake and the river system feeding the lake and flowing from it; [88350]

  (2) which statutory bodies have responsibility for (a) protecting water quality, (b) protecting aquatic species, (c) dealing with pollution and (d) protecting flora and fauna in the environment of Bassenthwaite Lake in Workington constituency; where responsibility lies in each case; [88352]

  (3) if she will seek a report from the Lake District National Park Authority on discharges of (a) untreated sewage and (b) other pollutants into Bassenthwaite Lake; what plans the Authority has to reduce discharge and remove phosphate deposits from the Lake; [88348]

  (4) what recent reports she has received from English Nature on the health of Vendace and the numbers of that species in Bassenthwaite Lake; [88351]

  (5) what reports she has received from the Environment Agency about levels of phosphate pollution and the incidence of algal blooms in Bassenthwaite Lake and the River Derwent; and if she will make a statement. [88349]

  Mr. Morley
  The statutory bodies that are principally responsible for water quality, species, pollution, and flora & fauna protection are the Environment Agency, English Nature and the Lake District National Park Authority.

  The Environment Agency is responsible for enforcing statutory controls on the entry of pollutants to controlled waters, and has specific duties in relation to protecting aquatic species. It is also the co-ordinator for the Bassenthwaite Lake Restoration Project that was set up last year to ensure an integrated approach to tackling the complex, longstanding pressures on the lake.

  All public bodies have a statutory duty to to take reasonable steps, consistent with the exercise of their functions, to further the conservation and enhancement of the features for which the lake has been designated a Site of Special Scientific Interest. Since the lake forms part of the River Derwent and Bassenthwaite Lake candidate Specal Area of Conservation, further duties on all statutory authorities in exercising their functions must have due regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive.

  Given its central role in the restoration programme and its duties in relation to fisheries, the Environment Agency is best placed to report on the health, breeding and distribution of fish species. The Derwent Salmon Action Plan consultation document contains information on the salmon population status in the Derwent catchment for the period 1990 to 2000. For most years the population achieved a considerable surplus over its conservation target. The most recent reliable data (for 2000) shows that the population level was almost double the conservation limit, indicating the population to be in very good health.

  There is less information on the status of species in the lake but available evidence suggests that the Vendace population is low. This is thought to be due to siltation of their spawning grounds and competition and predation from alien species, probably introduced by anglers. Recent bye-laws regulating the use of dead and
  616W
  live bait will control further introductions. The Environment Agency will be pleased to supply further information.

  The Agency can also supply details of permitted discharges. The condition of the lake is considered stable owing to improvements to Keswick sewage treatment works. Planned investment should deliver further improvements. The Environment Agency will consider what further improvements may be necessary for the investment period 2005–2010 and is carrying out a study to assess the potential for removal of phospherus in the lakebed sediment. Discharges of untreated sewage are very dilute and not thought to add significantly to the overall nutrient load.

  Diffuse sources of phosphorus and sediment pollution need to be addressed. Action under the restoration programme will need to include research to identify sources and causes of erosion and siltation; physical improvements to infrastructure including sewerage systems, farmsteads and highways; and improvements to agricultural practice through education and awareness campaigns.

  Occurrences of blue green algal blooms have been recorded on: 4 December 1998; 1 May 2000; 19 September 2000; and 20 September 2002. Controlling the total amount of phosphorus entering the lake will help to limit loads overall may reduce the frequency and extent of all types of algal bloom but will not eliminate them entirely sicne they are a natural feature of this type of lake and form as a result of the interaction of a number of variables including climatic conditions, lake chemistry, wind speed and hours of sunlight.

  Flood and Coastal Defence Funding Review
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what decision has been made on reviewing the project appraisal guidance to ensure that social and environmental issues are addressed following the Flood and Coastal Defence Funding Review; [90813]

  (2) what conclusions have been reached concerning the establishment of a minimum standard of flood defence, following the Flood and Coastal Defence Funding Review; [90814]

  (3) when the Government's response to the Flood and Coastal Defence Funding Review will be published. [90815]

  Mr. Morley
  I expect to announce conclusions on the Flood and Coastal Defence Funding Review as soon as possible.

  However, the arrangements for prioritising Defra's funding of flood and coastal defence capital works have already been revised to take more specific account of "people" and environmental issues. For schemes considered for approval from April 2003, the priority scores will be based on economics, "people" issues and environmental protection and enhancement.

  With regard to a minimum standard of flood defence, we currently operate on the basis of permissive powers, which allows the Environment Agency and other operating authorities to take action where it is

  617W
  considered justifiable against a range of criteria. This allows taxpayers' money to be spent where it is most needed, an approach overwhelmingly supported by respondents to our consultation on the review.

  Radioactive Waste Management
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what participation her Department plans to have in the European Commission's Net excel network of EUbased organisations responsible for radioactive waste management. [86139]

  Mr Meacher
  Net excel is an existing thematic network of excellence in nuclear waste management and disposal set up under the Euratom fifth framework programme for nuclear research and training. The consortium consists of eight radioactive waste management organisations from across Europe—Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Nirex from the UK. This Department has no direct participation, but we will be kept informed of the work leading to the report to the Commission towards the end of 2003.

  Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the ER M consultations on Government timber procurement has been completed; and if she will place a copy in the Library. [89672]

  Mr. Meacher
  The consultants have completed the timber scoping study that was commissioned by my officials in October 2001. Summaries of the open discussions held with stakeholders on 25 March and 2 September 2002 can be found at the Tropical Forest Forum website at: http://www.forestforum.org.uk/tradeb.htm. It also holds a copy of the consultant's report of the study giving their recommendations for implementing more fully our commitment on timber procurement. A copy of the various documents will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures have been taken by her Department since April 2002 to ensure full implementation of Government policy on timber; and if she will make a statement. [89673]

  Mr. Meacher
  Since April 2002 the Government have concentrated on raising awareness of its timber procurement policy among central departments and the 618W
  wider public sector and has begun to take action following completion of the scoping study undertaken by consultants. Some of the key measures taken are:

  promotion of the policy to devolved administrations and local authorities;

  evidence given to the Environmental Audit Committee;

  further consultation with stakeholders undertaken;

  reminders given to central departments;

  communication with the European Commission via the Office of Government Commerce to further clarify European Directives;

  commencement of procurement process for creation of a central point of expertise on timber procurement;

  collaboration with NGOs in sourcing timber for office building;

  contribution to briefing for international work including preparation for

  the World Summit on Sustainable Development

  Waste Recycling
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how (1) much his Department has allocated for waste recycling projects undertaken by(a) local authorities, (h) non-profit making organisations and (c) industry in financial years (i) 2002–03 and (ii) 2003–04; [90450]

  (2) how much her Department has allocated for waste recycling projects undertaken by (a) local authorities, (b) non-profit making organisations and (c)industry in financial years (i) 2002–03 and (ii) 2003–04. [90449]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]: I have been asked to reply.

  The main source of funding for local authority waste services is through the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services (EPCS) Standard Spending Assessment (SSA).

  The EPCS SSA provides for a wide range of local authority services including libraries, local transport and flood defence, as well as waste. In total, the provision for the block is:

  2002–03: £8,961 million

  2003–04: £9,435 million

  Provision for waste services is not separately identified within the total.

  We have provided £50 million additional funding for 2002–03 and £90 million for 2003–04 through a £140 million Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund to encourage local authorities to expand recycling operations in their area.

  A high proportion of our PFI funding supports recycling as set out in the criteria of September 2000. £220 million was allocated to PFI in Spending Review 2000 for the three years up to 2003–04. £70 million was allocated in the financial year 2002–03 and £100 million in 2003–04. These represent capital sums and not the revenue payments associated with them.

  We have provided funding for two projects from the Environmental Action Fund (EAF) in 2002–03 under the 'Understanding and Awareness' heading. £200,000 has been awarded to the Community Recycling

  619W
  Network and £30,750 to the Recycling Consortium in 2002–03. The funding allocation through the EAF for 2003–04 has not yet been announced.

  Environmental Campaigns (ENCAMS), a non-profit making organisation funded by DEFRA, spent £210,000 in 2002–03 on waste recycling projects: (£150,000 on textile recycling and £60,000 through its Pathfinder programme). ENCAMS do not have any waste recycling projects scheduled for 2003–04.

  DEFRA contribute £10,225 million for each of the years 2002–03 and 2003–04 to the Waste and Resources Action Programme to work with the commercial and industrial sectors to create stable and efficient markets for recycled materials and products and removing the barriers to waste minimisation, re-use and recycling.

TRANSPORT

  Industry Haulage
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with European colleagues regarding European road and rail haulage and drivers. [90370]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Discussions have taken place on the Commission's proposed Second Railway Package of legislative measures published in January 2002. This package aims to complete the liberalisation of the rail freight market, and to progress technical harmonisation of the EU rail network—including the processes to be followed to ensure the safety competence of train operators' staff.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals there are to reform the EU Working Time Directive for drivers on long distance haulage to cut out dead time and to recast drivers' duties; and if he will make a statement. [90369]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are two directives that will affect the working time of long distance haulage drivers. The most important is called the "organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities" (2002/15/EC). This is due to be implemented into UK law by 23 March 2005. It will introduce an average 48 hour working week, a limit of 60 hours for a single week and a 10 hour daily limit for night workers. Both sides of industry are being consulted on how this directive should be implemented into UK law and we plan to launch a wider consultation exercise later this year.

  Agency

  Title/Purpose

  Driving Standards Agency

  Design, build, installation and operation of a computer system for the booking of the Practical Driving Test and associated services, and the supply and maintenance of the Agency's IT/IS infrastructure.

  Highways Agency

  Consultancy Services Framework for the provision of Human Resources advice and professional services.

  Consultancy Framework for the provision of construction and design services.

  Provision of safety engineering professional services.

  Traffic monitoring services.

  Framework Agreement for audit and measurement services.

  Design and supervision of A66 Stainburn to Great Clifton Bypass trunk road contract.

  620W
  The Department of Trade and Industry plan to implement an amending directive (2000/34/EC) to the original working time directive (93/104/EC) later this year. This will extend working time legislation into previously excluded sectors, including transport. Under this directive, all drivers will be entitled to four weeks paid annual leave and night workers will get regular health assessments.

  Avia Solutions
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 7 January, ref 88280, (1) what payments have been made to Avia Solutions in connection with work undertaken in relation to his consultation on the future development of air transport in the United Kingdom; and what future payments to Avia Solutions his Department has contracted for; [90481]

  (2) what work Avia Solutions has undertaken for his Department in respect of the possible development of Redhill Aerodrome; and what payments have been made, or are contracted to be made, in relation to such work. [90482]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Avia Solutions are contracted to manage the analysis of the consultation responses received in respect of all areas of the United Kingdom, including that from Redhill Aerodrome Limited, as part of the ongoing air transport consultation. The analysis will be carried out by a team comprising civil servants and retained consultants with expertise in a range of relevant areas. The contract value is around £550,000.

  To date Avia Solutions have been paid about £700,000 for earlier work in support of the air transport consultation.

  The Department has not contracted Avia Solutions to undertake any other work in respect of possible development of Redhill Aerodrome.

  Capita Group
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the contracts that have been awarded to the Capita Group by his Department. [89975]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department currently has the following contract with the Capita Group:External Recruitment Service for the recruitment of staff at all grades below the senior civil service.

  In addition to the above the following contracts have been placed with Capita by DfT Agencies:

  Airport (Rugby and Coventry)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will produce a summary of letters regarding the proposal for a new airport between Rugby and Coventry. [90493]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We will publish a summary of all the responses we receive to the consultation, after the consultation period has ended. As our first priority will be to produce the Air Transport White Paper as quickly as practicable, it is likely that this summary will follow the White Paper's publication.

  Cross Rail/Thameslink
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the(a) Cross Rail project and (b) Thameslink project to be completed. [90614]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This will depend on securing the planning and other powers necessary to take the projects forward.

  Departmental Expenditure (Newsprint)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total expenditure of his Department was on newspapers, magazines and periodicals in 2002. [90517]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department for Transport was established as a separate Department on 29 May 2002. Prior to that date, DfT was part of the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, and separate expenditure figures for DfT are not available. From its formation until 31 December 2002, DfT expenditure on newspapers, magazines and periodicals was £50,000. This figure is rounded to the nearest £1,000, and excludes expenditure by DIE Agencies and other non-DfT(c) bodies.

  Drivers (Eye Tests)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for(a) compulsory eye tests and (b) random eye tests for drivers; and if he will make a statement. [90679]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are currently no plans to introduce compulsory eye tests. However, given the importance of eyesight in safe driving it is an issue which is kept under constant review. The number plate eyesight test for checking that drivers' vision is adequate for driving has served its purpose well since its introduction. It is equivalent to minimum standard laid down in the EC second Directive on Driving Licences (91/439/EEC).

  The police already have the power to conduct random checks of motorists' eyesight at the roadside. They notify DVLA of any drivers who do not meet the required standard. Such reports are always investigated.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the fee for obtaining a replacement driving licence has been in each of the past five years. [90023]
  622W
  Mr. Jamieson
  There is currently no charge, nor has there been in the last five years, for the issue of a replacement driving licence when a person notifies a change of name and/or address. In addition, there is an optional over the counter service available at selected post offices at a charge of £4.00.

  DVLA Clamping Teams
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 12 December 2002,official Report, columns 407–08W, how many of the DVLA clamping teams operating in London are mobile. [90027]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are four clamping teams dedicated to the London area. They are all mobile in the sense they can operate in any of the 33 London boroughs. However, the DVLA also has two mobile clamping teams that operate throughout the UK in areas where there are no permanent clamping facilities.

  Ethical Banking
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what contracts have been concluded as a result of the Government's commitment to support ethical banking. [89943]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government believe it is important for consumers to have choice in financial products, including the availability of 'ethical' products. However, it would not be appropriate for the Government to exclusively support the development of one specific group of financial service providers. It is for individual consumers to decide the attributes they most value from their financial services, and for financial services firms to be transparent about their use of funds and investments.

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what fair trade criteria he sets when deciding upon what suppliers to use. [89909]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right. hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 9 December 2002,official Report, column 92W.

  My Department is fully committed to supporting fair trade principles, and our headquarters catering contracts require contractors to supply a choice of Fairtrade beverages.

  Road Congestion (Freight)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps have been taken to relieve points on Britain's roads where freight transport is frequently held up. [90319]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My responsibilities extend only to the trunk road and motorway network in England. Issues on the rest of Britain's roads are for the National Assemblies of Scotland and Wales, or for the local highway authorities in the case of local roads.
  623W
  "Transport 2010: The Ten Year Plan" sets out the Government's vision for a fairer and more effective transport system.

  Pilot studies into the active management of road traffic and making better use of the existing road space are being undertaken by the Highways Agency. To help deliver the reduction in congestion, the Highways Agency is also developing its role as a traffic manager to help road users deal with congestion on motorways and other strategic routes. Actions to date include the delivery of more electronic Variable Message Signs, automatic hold up warning systems, website and public information improvements and the first stages of a new national Traffic Control Centre due to begin operating in 2004. The Traffic Control Centre will provide advice to road users about travel conditions on the trunk road network allowing them to plan their journeys more effectively to avoid congestion. In conjunction with the Police and other emergency services, the Agency is improving the way it deals with accidents and incidents on the network so that they are dealt with more effectively, reducing the time roads are disrupted to minimise congestion.

  Where necessary, programmes of works such as the Targeted Programme of Improvements, currently comprising 71 schemes, and the recently announced 92 priority junction schemes will be delivered. Both will provide increased capacity and improve conditions on the network. In 2002–03 we will deliver 10 major schemes from our Targeted Programme of Improvements and in 2003–04 we expect to deliver a further nine schemes.

  Gatwick Airport (Birdstrikes)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the risk of birdstrike to planes landing at and taking off from Gatwick Airport. [90432]

  Mr. Jamieson
  All licensed aerodromes in the UK are required, as a condition of their operating licence, to take reasonable steps to secure that the aerodrome and its immediately surrounding airspace is safe at all times for use by aircraft. Aerodrome operating manuals are also required to contain information and instructions about the procedures for the control of bird hazards.

  Light Railways
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to fund experimental(a) single route and twin route light railways and (b) tram systems in towns with populations of over 100,000. [90359]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We use the terms tram and light rail synonymously. It is for the local authority to consider in the first instance whether light rail might offer the most appropriate and cost-effective response to particular transport needs in its area and, if so, what form it might best take. Thereafter, any light rail scheme—experimental or otherwise—would need to undergo rigorous appraisal, and examination under any relevant statutory procedures, before funding approval could be considered.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road (Low-noise Tarmac)
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether low-noise tarmac is being used in the construction of the Birmingham Northern Relief Road. [89449]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Yes. Responsibility for deciding on the surfacing treatment for the M6 Toll rests with Midlands Expressway Ltd. (MEL) the commissioning contractor. Their intention is to use low noise surfacing along the entire length of the route.

  Marine Pollution
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to increase the liability of tankers that cause marine pollution incidents; and if he will make a statement. [89902]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Liability for pollution from cargo oil from tankers is governed by the 1992 Protocols to the 1969 Civil Liability Convention and the 1971 Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, to which the UK is a contracting party. The current limit under this regime is equivalent to £117 million.

  As a result of action initiated by the UK, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) agreed in 2000 to increase the limits of liability and compensation under the 1992 CLC/Fund regime by 50.37 per cent. The revised overall limits will enter into force on 1 November this year, and will increase the maximum available amount of compensation to approximately £176 million.

  In addition, a Diplomatic Conference has been convened at the IMO in May this year to negotiate a proposed Supplementary Fund to the present regime. It is expected that, once it comes into force, this Supplementary Fund will further increase the amount of liability and compensation significantly so as to cover all likely costs directly arising from the most serious of tanker oil spills.

  The UK is also playing a prominent role in promoting the implementation of other maritime liability conventions which will increase liability for third party damages arising from shipping.

  Merchant Ships
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many merchant ships have been chartered by the MOD in the past five years; what their names were; and what their flag states were. [88901]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have been asked to reply.

  Some 367 merchant ships have been chartered by the Ministry of Defence over the period April 1997 to December 2002. I am placing a list containing the relevant information in the Library of the House.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what dates Ministers in his Department and his predecessor's Department have held meetings
  625W
  with members and officials of the United States Administration since 8 June 2001; where each meeting took place; which Ministers were involved in each meeting; which United States Administration departments attended each meeting; and which members and officials from the United States Administration attended each of these meetings. [89466]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Ministers have held meetings with representatives of the United States Administration on a variety of transport issues since June 2001.

  Pedestrians (Romford)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure the delivery of the accelerated town centre improvements to re-route traffic and enhance the pedestrian environment in Romford. [90796]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a matter for Transport for London and the London Borough of Havering.

  For further information please contact:

  Ben Plowden

  Transport for London

  Director of Borough Partnerships

  Windsor House

  42–50 Victoria Street

  London SW1H OTL

  Telephone: 020 7941 4079

  Road Deaths
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress in assessing the work in the Netherlands where traffic lights have been removed in an attempt to reduce road deaths; and if he will make a statement. [90765]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department is aware of work in the Netherlands. We understand there have been accident reductions but we have seen no figures to quantify these claims or any details of the effects on traffic flows and the behaviour of road users generally.626W
  We will continue to monitor the experiments and will work with UK local authorities who wish to trial some of the techniques that have been applied and which involve more than just the removal of traffic signals.

  Seaports and Airports
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action the Government has taken since 1997 to ensure that UK seaports and airports have the necessary capacity to satisfy demand. [90320]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have undertaken a comprehensive assessment of existing airport capacity across the UK and possible options for expansion in the light of forecast demand. This formed the basis of our public consultation last summer, which is now being extended to include Gatwick options. Our conclusions will be set out in the air transport White Paper later this year. Approval has also been given to the construction of a fifth terminal at Heathrow airport which will substantially increase its passenger handling capacity.

  A number of port operators are preparing major projects to increase port capacity which are at various stages in the planning approval process. One (at Felixstowe) has so far been approved, the public inquiry on another (at Dibden Bay Southampton) finished in December and the Inspector plans to submit his report by October 2003. A public inquiry into a third (at London Gateway) is scheduled to begin in February, and there are plans for development at Bathside Bay, Harwich and further expansion at Felixstowe.

  West Coast Mainline
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the age of the rolling stock on the West Coast Mainline. [90724]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority provides information on the average age of rolling stock in their publication, "National Rail Trends", which is placed in the Library of the House. The information is not available by particular routes.

WALES

  Accreditation
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his Department is doing to support the Government's policy on accreditation. [88086]

  Peter Hain
  The United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) is recognised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry as the sole national body for the accreditation, against international standards, of certification and inspection bodies, testing and calibration laboratories.

  Cardiff (Lord Mayoralty)
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding the Lord Mayoralty of Cardiff. [89737]

  Peter Hain
  None.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with his ministerial colleagues about the impact of the Pension Credit in Wales. [89732]

  Peter Hain
  Regular ones. The introduction of the Pension Credit from October 2003 will benefit 250,000 pensioner households in Wales, with those on £150 per week benefiting from an extra £1,100 each year.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with rail passenger groups in Wales on adequacy of rail services. [89738]

  Peter Hain
  A meeting of representatives from the Rail Passenger Committee in Wales is planned.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cricket World Cup
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made in the last six months to(a) the International Cricket Council and (b) the English Cricket Board with regard to (i) World Cup matches being rescheduled outside Zimbabwe and (ii) the England Cricket Team not playing in that country. [90644]

  Mr. Straw
  FCO officials have been in contact with the ICC and ECB since July 2002. They have provided briefing on the internal political, economic and humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe and advice on how this might impact on security. Ministers have repeatedly made clear that decisions on England's participation in the match it is scheduled to play in Harare on 13 February rest with the ECB and the ICC, but that in the Government's view, it would be better if the team did not go.

  EU Accession States
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 7 January 2003,official Report, column 136W, whether the Government plans to give (a) indirect financial support to campaigning groups within the 10 EU accession states and (b) other support to such groups and individuals; and if he will make a statement. [90738]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government does not plan to give indirect financial support to campaigning groups within the 10 EU accession states.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 7 January 2003, official Report, col.136W.

  Hungary (Religious Discrimination)
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of current levels of religious discrimination in Hungary. [90561]

  Mr. MacShane
  We believe there is no major religious discrimination in Hungary. Religious freedom is anyway enshrined in the Hungarian Constitution.

  Hungary has also been assessed as meeting the Copenhagen criteria, which includes human rights for all citizens as part of the process of accession to the EU.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the United States on US plans for a postSaddam Hussein government in Iraq. [90236]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We regularly discuss all aspects of Iraq policy with our US colleagues. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary explained in his Written Ministerial Statement of 7 January 2003,official Report, column 4WS, our policy remains to ensure that Iraq complies with its obligations under relevant Security Council resolutions, including by giving up its weapons of mass destruction.

  Lebanon
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received from the Government of Lebanon regarding the reported admission by Yusef Shaban that he had responsibility for the Lockerbie disaster. [90931]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have received no specific information from the Lebanese government on this matter, although we are aware of the case.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his meeting with the Lockerbie relatives on 17 December 2002. [88605]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement on Lockerbie made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 17 December 2002,official Report, column 41WS.
  629W
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the result of his meeting with the Lockerbie relatives on 17th December. [88606]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement on Lockerbie made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 17 December 2002,official Report, column 41WS.

PRIME MINISTER

  United Nations
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Prime Minister if he intends to visit New York before 27 January to discuss with other world leaders business likely to come before the UN. [90591]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  Drug Treatment
  John Mann
  To ask the Prime Minister what validation there is of statistics on waiting times for drug treatment held by the national treatment agency. [90592]

  The Prime Minister
  Information on waiting times for drug treatment is collected annually through the Drug Action Team treatment planning process. The data, which is provided by the service providers, is subject to scrutiny by the DATs. The figures are further scrutinised by the National Treatment Agency, the Government Offices and other local partners.

  Cricket World Cup
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has made in the last six months to(a) the International Cricket Council and (b) the English Cricket Board with regard to (i) World Cup matches being rescheduled outside Zimbabwe and (ii) the England Cricket Team not playing in that country. [90642]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's position on this remains as I set out in the House on 8 January 2003,official Report, column 162. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Minister for Sport, and my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office met the ECB on 9 January. This was the culmination of dialogue between the ECB and government that began on 5 July last year at official level. The ECB nominate the England and Wales representative to the ICC. They are well aware of the situation in Zimbabwe and the Government's views on their participation.

  Honours
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Prime Minister how many honours have been awarded in each constituency since 1 May 1997. [90954]

  The Prime Minister
  This information is not held in the format requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  House of Lords Reform
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister if it is his policy that the political balance of the House of Lords should be maintained prior to the implementation of legislation completing the second stage of reform. [89812]

  The Prime Minister
  While the way forward on reform of the House of Lords is still under consideration, arrangements for identifying new members of the House remain unchanged. Membership of the House is kept under ongoing review.

  Job Sharing
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the extent of job sharing in his office. [90865]

  The Prime Minister
  At 31 December 2002, my office had a total of three job-share arrangements involving six members of staff.

  My office is committed to supporting part-time working, job-sharing and other forms of alternative working patterns. Cabinet Office policies apply in my office and all advertised posts will normally be open to anyone wishing to work an alternative working pattern, including part-timers and job-sharers although there will be some instances where this is not possible due to the nature of the work. The flexibility of any alternative working pattern is decided in conjunction with the local management to suit an individual's needs and the needs of their work.

  Michael Barber
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Prime Minister to whom Mr. Michael Barber is responsible. [91168]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) on 13 January 2003,official Report, column 461W.

DEFENCE

  Air Defence
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has held with the United States on measures to fill the Royal Navy's air defence gap between the withdrawal of the Sea Harriers and the advent of the Joint Strikefighter; and what assessment he has made of the risk of aerial attack against Royal Navy ships between 2006 and 2012. [89886]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is our current assessment that the main threat to the Fleet in future would come from sea-skimming missiles. The Sea Harrier FA2 lacks utility in countering this threat. There have been no discussions with the United States of America on the Royal Navy's air defence capability for the period following the withdrawal of the Sea Harrier FA2 aircraft, although they were advised of the decision as part of the United Kingdom's annual submission to the NATO Defence Planning Questionnaire. Following the withdrawal of the Sea Harrier FA2, Royal Navy Task Groups will
  631W
  typically include Type 42 Anti-Air Warfare Destroyers and Type 22 and 23 Frigates also equipped with air defence capability. The Type 42 Destroyers systems are being enhanced to ensure that they remain effective in the air defence role.

  The first upgraded Airborne Early Warning Sea King Flight has recently entered service providing a marked improvement in capability to detect airborne threats to the Task Group over both sea and land, and the introduction of the Type 45 Destroyers, equipped with the highly capable Principal Anti-Air Missile System (PAAMS) will represent further improvement in our air defence capability. It is also highly unlikely that the Royal Navy will operate alone, but instead is more likely to be part of a coalition force with other Allied defence assets, as well as our own.

  Army (Joiners and Leavers)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people joined the Army in the last year for which figures are available. [90355]

  Dr. Moonie
  The number of people joining the Army in the latest calendar year for which information is available is as follows:2001 (1 January-31 December): 15,380

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people left the Army in each of the last six calendar years. [90354]

  Dr. Moonie
  The number of people leaving the Army in the last six calendar years for which information is available is as follows:

  Year

  Number of personnel leaving the army

  2001

  14,400

  2000

  15,710

  1999

  16,090

  1998

  17,140

  1997

  14,560

  1996

  16,280

  Castle Class Patrol Ships
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where the Castle class patrol ships will be deployed in 2003. [90336]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are two Castle class patrol ships, one of whom is always allocated to the Falkland Islands as the FI Patrol Vessel. This is currently Leeds Castle. She deployed from the United Kingdom in January 2001 and will remain in the Falklands until June 2004.

  Dumbarton Castle is acting as Flagship for Commander Mine Countermeasures Force (North) until May 2003—a role she took up in May 2002. When she leaves the NATO Squadron she is programmed to enter Refit, in Rosyth, in June 2003 until February 2004.

  Catering Staff (Combat Training)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many chefs and catering staff, broken down by regiment, have undergone combat training in the last six months in addition to any routine training that they may receive; and if he will make a statement. [90773]

  Dr. Moonie
  This information is not held centrally and can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Chemical Detectors
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the LCD-S palm sized chemical detectors have been delivered to service personnel; and if he will make a statement. [90170]

  Mr. Ingram
  Deliveries of the Lightweight Chemical Agent Detector have not yet been made but are scheduled to commence shortly.

  Defence Logistics Organisation
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures of efficiency are used within the Defence Logistics Organisation; and on which occasions these measures have not been met in the last three years. [88409]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Defence Logistic Organisation has since its formation on 1 April 2000 continued to contribute to the overall Year on Year Departmental Efficiency Target set as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review of 1998 and reported annually via the Departmental Performance report. Prior to 1 April 2000 Efficiency reports against the Departmental Target were the responsibility of the individual logistic Commands, Naval Support Command, Quartermaster General and Air Member Logistics.

  The individual DLO efficiency measures that contributed to the overall Departmental efficiency target for these years also contribute to the DLO's strategic goal, a 20 per cent. reduction in DLO output costs (as at March 2000) by 31 March 2006. Examples of the types of measure are contained within the latest Ministry of Defence Departmental Performance Report 2001–02 paragraphs 75 and 110 (available at the MOD website at www.mod.uk). From March 2000 to March 2002 the DLO has made a 5.6 per cent. efficiency saving in resource terms against its strategic goal. We have now agreed with the Treasury how the efficiency achievement in financial year 2002–03 will be measured, and we are currently discussing with them how performance against the remainder of the strategic goal (from 2003–04 onwards) will be measured.

  Defence Intelligence and Security Centre
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) people were trained by DISC and (b) training places were made available in DISC, in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [90775]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is set out in the following table.
  633W

  Training year1

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Personnel trained by Defence Intelligence and Security Centre2

  3,294

  3,373

  3,222

  3,105

  33,777

  Training places made available4

  4,231

  4,499

  4,644

  4,612

  4,684

  1In common with all military training establishments, DISC records statistics in training years which run from 1 April to 31 March. Hence the figures for TY 2002–03 are a forecast and include personnel still to complete training.

  2Figures given for personnel trained by DISC includes those who may have been withdrawn from course before its completion.

  3Forecast.

  4Training places made available are those agreed with the course sponsors, taking into account the sponsors' requirements and the resources available at DISC.

  Field Medical Units
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) field hospital units and (b) field ambulance units are currently deployed; and how many are ready to be deployed. [90341]

  Dr. Moonie
  There is one field hospital unit currently deployed, which is in the Balkans. Three further field hospital units (two Regular units and one Territorial Army) could be deployed within 30 days. Regular Field Ambulance units no longer exist and now form part of the five medical regiments, each of which have a High Readiness Squadron that could be deployed within 30 days. There are four Territorial Army Field Ambulance units, none of which are currently deployed or being prepared to deploy.

  Fire Appliances (Training)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of HM armed forces have been trained to use modern fire appliances; what plans he has for more to be trained; and if he will make a statement. [90353]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 21 November 2002,official Report, column 220W to the hon. Member for the Isle of White (Mr. Turner). Since that time, the total number of personnel held contingent to provide emergency fire fighting cover has not changed significantly, nor have the numbers trained in specialist roles.

  A total of 1,062 personnel have, however, now been trained in the use of Red Goddesses and 177 Red Goddesses are now available for use during strike action. Personnel operating them form part of the overall numbers deployed.

  There are currently no plans to increase the numbers of armed forces personnel deployed on this operation. While our capability is subject to constant improvement as time goes by, both the numbers deployed and the operational concept have proved sufficient to ensure an adequate level of emergency cover during strike periods.

  General Dynamics UK
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Ministry of Defence is pursuing legal redress from General Dynamics UK Ltd. for the suspension of the Defence Stores Management System programme. [90177]

  Mr. Ingram
  General Dynamics UK Ltd. were not contracted to the Ministry of Defence for provision of the Defence Stores Management System, and the question of legal redress does not, therefore, arise.

  Gracemoor Consultants
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the meetings he, his Ministers and his officials have had with representatives of Gracemoor Consultants since 1997. [82153]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Iraq
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his(a) European and (b) US colleagues regarding military co-operation in the Gulf. [90329]

  Mr. Hoon
  The statement by NATO heads of state and government issued on 21 November 2002 at the Prague summit affirmed that "NATO allies stand united in their commitment to take effective action and support the efforts of the UN to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq with UNSCR 1441". It is in this context that I have regular contacts with my European and American colleagues. These discussions have covered a wide range of topics, including military cooperation in the Gulf should that be required.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the troops referred to in his oral statement of 7 January 2003,official Report, columns 23–39, will arrive in the Gulf; and what training they will undertake. [90327]

  Mr. Hoon
  In my oral statement of 7 January 2003,official Report, column 25, I announced that we plan to deploy amphibious forces including HQ 3 Commando Brigade, 40 Commando Royal Marines and 42 Commando Royal Marines, with all supporting elements, to the Mediterranean with a view to proceeding to the Gulf region if and as required. In accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information it would be inappropriate for me to discuss details of military planning, including timings.

  The group will conduct training in the Mediterranean, including force integration and combat enhancement training.

  HMS Invincible
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if HMS Invincible will complete her refit at Rosyth on schedule. [90338]

  Mr. Ingram
  Work on HMS Invincible's refit is nearing completion and on schedule. It is planned to return the ship to the Fleet in May 2003.

  Nuclear Missiles (USA)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his counterpart in the USA regarding its further development of nuclear missile capabilities. [90316]

  Dr. Moonie
  I have had no such discussions with my United States counterpart, but Ministry of Defence officials have regular contacts with various US authorities on matters relating to nuclear weapons.

  QinetiQ
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the written ministerial statement of 5 December 2002, official Report, column 85WS, on QinetiQ, what proportion of the company's assets is reflected in the £50 million already received by his Department from QinetiQ as part of the purchase price paid by Carlyle Group for those assets; and what the total estimated value is of QinetiQ's assets divided into(a) tangible and (b) intangible assets. [90736]

  Dr. Moonie
  When QinetiQ was vested as a plc on 1 July 2001 the Ministry of Defence required it to purchase its assets from MOD with a combination of equity and an obligation in the form of interest-bearing loan notes to pay a further £150 million. The £50 million has been paid as part settlement of the outstanding loan notes.

  QinetiQ Group plc's Annual Report and Financial Statement 2002 shows a net book value for tangible assets of £534.6 million, the majority of which comprises land and buildings. This figure takes no account of the company's liabilities. The value for disposal of the property on the open market is estimated by QinetiQ's management to be at least £113 million less than the net book value. QinetiQ's Annual Report 2002 also values the intangible assets at £1.0 million.

  Search and Rescue
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost in each of the last five years of his Department's search and rescue capability in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [90157]

  Mr. Ingram
  Air and sea rescue is undertaken by a number of organisations within the Ministry of Defence and is conducted from a wide variety of locations utilising many different assets. The information requested is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  SSNs
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which SSNs are in refit; and when they will rejoin the fleet. [90332]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are three SSNs currently in refit. HMS Sceptre and Spartan are planned to rejoin the fleet by summer 2003 and HMS Trenchant towards the end of 2003.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which SSNs will be going into refit in each of the next three years; and for how long they will be nonoperational. [90333]
  636W
  Mr. Ingram
  The next planned SSN refit is that of HMS Talent which is expected to start in spring 2003 and take approximately 2½ to 3 years to complete, including post refit trials and training. I am withholding details of SSN refits planned to start beyond 2003 in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which relates to defence, security and international relations.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Tomahawk-capable SSNs are operational; and of these how many are at sea. [90334]

  Mr. Ingram
  Currently the Royal Navy has three Tomahawk-capable submarines operationally available, however, the specific operational status and tasking of each submarine is classified for security reasons and is being withheld under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Statutory Instruments subject to negative procedure made by his Department(a) came into force and (b) were considered by a delegated legislation committee in each of the last three sessions. [88024]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is held in calendar years and not by parliamentary session. The number of Statutory Instruments laid by the Ministry of Defence that were subject to the negative procedure and that came into force in the last three years is:

  Number

  2000

  15

  2001

  3

  2002

  8

  None of these statutory instruments were considered by a delegated legislation committee.

  War Veterans (Support)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department is taking to support(a) Falklands War and (b) Gulf War veterans. [86983]

  Dr. Moonie
  Since my appointment as the Government's Minister for Veterans in March 2001, I have been taking steps to provide all veterans from Her Majesty's armed forces with a co-ordinated focus for dealing with their concerns. I have set out three main priorities for this work. Firstly to pull together the Government's response to issues that cut across Government Departments, such as veterans' homelessness or ill-health; secondly to ensure that lessons learnt are absorbed into MOD's policies for service personnel; and thirdly, to improve communication by publicising the assistance offered to veterans by central, devolved and local government as well as giving veterans' organisations the opportunity to represent their collective and individual concerns to Government at ministerial level.

  In terms of financial support, all injured service personnel who are deemed to have sustained a disability due to their work in the armed forces are eligible for a

  637W
  tax-free 'War Disablement Pension' from the Veterans Agency. They may also qualify for an attributable pension under the Armed Forces Pension Scheme.

  The Veterans Agency has always provided potential claimants with help and advice while they are completing their pension applications through a Freephone Helpline. That service was extended in April 2002 to provide all veterans and their dependents with a first point of contact and advice and information on where to access the support that is available to veterans from both the Government and the additional support provided by the veterans' charitable organisations. This support is provided to help ease the transition back into the civilian community in terms of employment and housing resettlement.

  Many of those whose service included deployments during the Falklands and the Gulf Conflicts will have already left the armed forces and some of those have ongoing health concerns that are being treated through the support provided under the national health service.

  In relation to the Gulf Conflict of 1990–91, we accept that some veterans are ill and that some have died. In our policy document: "Gulf Veterans Illnesses: A New Beginning" dated 14 July 1997, we set out how we would deal with this complex issue. We adopted three principles. First, that all Gulf veterans will have prompt access to medical advice from the MOD's Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment. Second, that there will be appropriate research into veterans' illnesses and factors which might have a bearing on these. Third, the MOD will make available to the public any information it possesses which is of potential relevance to this issue. The policy document and information about what we have done in respect of Gulf veterans' illnesses can be found on the internet at: www.mod.ulc/issues/gulfwar.

  At present I am not aware of any evidence that demonstrates that veterans from any particular campaign or conflict need additional support. But we remain open minded and one of the working groups established as part of the Government's current Veterans Initiative has placed a contract with King's College London for research to provide evidence to support policy decisions to improve the delivery of cross-departmental support to veterans and identify any areas of unmet need. The next stage of this research will include interviews with key stakeholder organisations, such as the South Atlantic Medal Association 82, The Royal British Legion and Combat Stress as well as individual veterans. The aim will be to gather information on the needs of ex-service personnel, particularly the more vulnerable who are struggling with financial or emotional problems.

  Warships (Protection)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on changes in(a) training and (b) watch-keeping practices in the Royal Navy since the attack on the USS Cole; [89874]

  (2) if he will make a statement on resources allocated to research into protection of warships from suicide attacks since the USS Cole incident. [89873]
  638W
  Mr. Ingram
  Detailed classified guidance on countering the Asymmetric threat has been issued to all Royal Navy and RFA vessels, and this guidance is reviewed regularly. In addition, Operational Sea Training has been improved to take into account new trends in Force Protection.

  Ships in United Kingdom military ports are now protected by armed gangway personnel. Also, units deployed to high risk ports will, as required, put in place enhanced Force Protection methods in the form of booms and physical barriers, with the agreement of the host nation.

  A team has been set up within the Fleet Headquarters specifically to deal with Force Protection issues.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  BBC (Independent Productions)
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the Office of Fair Trading intends to report on whether the BBC has met its independent production quota for the period April 2001 to March 2002. [90283]

  Dr. Howells
  I understand that the Office of Fair Trading is in the process of finalising the Director's report on the BBC's independent production quota for the 2001–02 reporting period. The report is expected to be published by the spring.

  Cricket World Cup
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations her Department has made in the last six months to(a) the International Cricket Council and (b) the English Cricket Board with regard to (i) World Cup matches being rescheduled outside Zimbabwe and (ii) the England Cricket Team not playing in that country. [90643]

  Mr. Caborn
  Officials in this Department contacted the England and Wales Cricket Board on 30 December 2002 and 2 January 2003 to discuss a possible meeting between the Board and Ministers. No representations have been made to the International Cricket Council by DCMS officials over the last six months.

  Industrial Action
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media arid Sport how many working days have been lost in her Department due to industrial action in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–01, (e) 2001–02, and (f) 2002–03; and if she will make a statement. [90484]

  Dr. Howells
  DCMS has not lost any working days due to industrial action in the years 1997–98 to 2002–03.

  Licensing Bill
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to require churches to be licensed in order to stage concerts; what fees they will have to pay in order to hold such concerts; and if she will make a statement. [90574]
  639W
  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 14 January 2003]: In the Regulatory Impact Assessment, published with the Licensing Bill, it has been estimated that an initial application for a premises licence would cost between £100 and £500, and that there would be an annual charge of between £50 and £150.

  However, as I stated in the House of Commons on 16 December 2002, official Report, column 517, the Government has made a commitment to reconsider its position on the licensing of public entertainments in churches and will announce its conclusions as soon as possible.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Child Care
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many new child care workers have been recruited as a consequence of the child care recruitment campaign; and how many are working in child care settings. [87968]

  Maria Eagle
  The 2001 Child Care Workforce Survey shows that there are 274,520 child care staff across the sector. This is a rise of 21 per cent. from the 1998 workforce survey figures, when the figure stood at 226,340.

  There have been over 140,000 calls to the child care recruitment campaign national telephone order line. We do not keep track of the outcomes for all individuals who call, but a small sample survey in January 2002 showed that 86 per cent. of the callers surveyed had looked for job information and 10 per cent. had already found a job in the sector.

  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent progress has been made against targets by early years development and child care partnerships. [87982]

  Maria Eagle
  Local authorities returns indicated that by summer 2002 free nursery education places were available for some 70 per cent. of 3-year-olds, towards the target of a free such place by 2004 for all 3-year-olds whose parents want one. They also indicated that by June 2002 new child care places had been created since 1997 for some 1 million children towards the target of new places for 1.6 million children by March 2004; and that taking account of turnover in existing places, the increase in child care places to June 2002 will have benefited some 0.6 million children towards the target of 1 million children by March 2004. Information on progress against a range of other targets will he included in local authorities 2003–04 early years development and child care plans, which are to be returned in February 2003.

  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his estimate is of the number of affordable child care places that will be needed if 70 per cent. of lone parents are to be in work by 2010. [88001]

  Maria Eagle
  The provision of affordable and flexible child care places for lone parents will be a key part of the strategy in meeting the 2010 70 per cent. employment 640W
  rate target. However it is not possible to accurately estimate the number of child care places required to increase the lone parent employment rate to 70 per cent. due to the wide range of interrelated factors that will determine both the lone parent employment rate and the take up of child care places by working lone parents.

  Education Maintenance Allowance
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students in the(a) Wansbeck constituency and (b) County of Northumberland have received the education maintenance allowance. [88157]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department does not collect data on the number of students receiving the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) for areas smaller than LEA size. The number of students in Northumberland receiving the EMA in each academic year, since the pilot began, is set out in the table.

  The figures from 2002–03 are to the 27 December 2002 instead of the end of the academic year as with the 2000–2001 and 2001–2002 figures. As a result, these figures inevitably seem low compared to the other academic years. However, the number of students receiving EMA in December 2002 is also lower than the figure at the same time in the previous academic year. This is primarily due to the key member of the EMA team at Northumberland going on long term sick leave. In fact, the number of applications received in Northumberland is slightly up on the previous year's figures.

  Academic year

  Number receiving EMA

  2000–01

  1,502

  2001–02

  12,595

  2002–03

  12,281

  1Includes students who started courses in the previous year

  Note:

  2002–03 figures are to the 27 December 2002

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent representations he has received on EMAG policy and funding distribution. [89598]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department has received representations or enquiries from 10 Local Education Authorities and two schools about the current arrangements for distributing EMAG.

  IT Support
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on progress in providing a laptop computer with in ternet access and ICT support to every teacher(a) in the UK and (b) in Leyton and Wanstead; and when he expects the policy to be fully implemented. [90457]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Laptops for Teachers initiative launched at the BETT show in January 2002 is open to all eligible teachers in England. To date LEAs have been given £60 million to purchase laptop computers on behalf of their schools and so far over 60,000 laptop computers have been bought.
  641W
  I announced on 9 January 2003 a £195 million extension of this initiative to April 2006, making the total amount of funding £300 million. This will result in two thirds of all eligible teachers benefiting from personal access to a laptop computer over the four year period of this initiative.

  In May 2002 Waltham Forest and Redbridge LEAs, who are responsible for Leyton and Wanstead were allocated a total of £597,156 and have to date spent a total of £463,801 purchasing 453 laptop computers.

  School Standards
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the cost of proposals contained within the document, 'Time for Standards'; and what discussions he has had with the Treasury on the document. [89365]

  Mr. Miliband
  Within the Government's agreed spending plans, we estimate that the cost of workforce reform will rise to some £1 billion per annum by 2005–06. This is well within the £6 billion planned increase in school budgets to be achieved by that year. These spending plans and the proposals in "Time for Standards" naturally carry the support of the Treasury.

  Sure Start (Rural Areas)
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many applications there have been for the Sure Start scheme in rural areas since its launch; how many have been accepted; and what the average amount spent on each bid has been to date. [88143]

  Maria Eagle
  In rolling out Sure Start local programmes, we have invited local authority districts with large rural areas to establish a rural programme. Fifteen local authority districts have put forward an identifiably rural area as the location for their Sure Start local programme. These have all been accepted. The average level of revenue funding when programmes become fully operational—which is the third year of operation—is around £750,000 (this includes two programmes which are currently being developed as part of the 6'h wave and their funding has not yet been finalised). Capital funding ranging from £750,000 to £900,000 has also been committed to each rural programme. This is based on the capital strategy submitted by each individual programme and is intended to fund major capital projects in the first three years of operation.

  In addition, we are supporting a pilot project of 50 Mini Sure Start programmes in rural areas and areas with pockets of deprivation. These programmes cover areas where the number of disadvantaged children living in a defined area is considerably less than the 800 required for a typical full programme and so would not be covered by the traditional Sure Start model. The Mini Sure Start programmes are building on existing services like Neighbourhood Nurseries or other facilities delivering children's services and using Sure Start funding to deliver outreach and additional health work. Of the 50 Mini Sure Start pilots, 29 are specifically in rural areas. Average revenue grant for these
  642W
  programmes across the financial years 2002–03 and 2003–04 is £110,000. Capital funding of up to £250,000 has also been made available.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Embryo Research
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what action she will take to prevent a conflict between the Polkinghorne guidelines on separation and the MRC initiative to target IVF clinics to make more embryonic stem cells available via the donation of embryos; [89042]

  (2) what criteria were used by the MRC to decide which clinics would be approached as part of the national stem cell initiative; [89038]

  (3) what annual sums the MRC is proposing to make available as part of its targeted call for expressions of interest in developing consortia that foster two way collaborations between IVF clinics and researchers in the context of the national stem cell initiative; [89036]

  (4) what incentives the MRC will use to increase the supply of human embryos for the national stem cell initiative; [89035]

  (5) if she will estimate the number of human embryos the MRC are aiming to obtain as part of their seeking expressions of interest in the national stem cell initiative; [89033]

  (6) if she will list the clinics that received the MRC letter seeking expressions of interest in developing consortia that foster two way collaboration between IVF clinics and researchers in the context of the national stem cell initiative. [89037]

  Ms Hewitt
  Regulations were introduced in January 2001 to extend the purposes for which human embryos may be used in research. The regulations enable the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to issue a licence for research for the purposes of increasing knowledge about the development of embryos and serious disease and to enable such knowledge to be applied in developing treatments for serious disease.

  The Medical Research Council (MRC) has taken the lead, in collaboration with the UK regulatory authorities (Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, Department of Health, Medicines Control Agency) and other funding agencies, in generating a coordinated national stem cell strategy. As part of this, MRC has appointed the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control to set up a UK Stem Cell Bank for the curation and distribution of ethically sourced, quality controlled human adult, foetal and embryonic stem (ES) cell lines.

  MRC, HFEA, the Department of Health and the Medicines Control Agency are collaborating to generate a UK-wide framework that will include: provision for oversight of national activities in stem cell research, standard donor information and consent forms, and route maps for researchers wishing to develop, bank and use stem cell lines for research and therapeutic purposes.

  643W
  The HFEA license will require that samples of all ES cell lines be deposited in the UK stem cell bank. This will reduce the number of embryos required as individual researchers will not need to generate their own stem cell lines.

  In relation to the Call for Expressions of Interest in establishing consortia, applicants will be able to request pump priming support for up to three years. It is expected that more substantial support would be sought through conventional grant schemes. Examples for which funds might be sought through this call include:

  a nurse co-ordinator post to aid consenting by potential donors and facilitate interactions between the clinics and researchers

  travel expenses to assist liaison between researchers and clinics

  essential small equipment (e.g. a dedicated incubator or insulated containers to transport samples between sites)

  short-term secondments between collaborating centres for the purpose of training

  The Polkinghorne guidelines refer to the use of foetal tissue. The House of Lords Select Committee report on Stem Cell Research (February 2002) recommends the separation of clinical and research roles to be standard practice for donation of eggs and embryos. MRC will adhere to this recommendation in funding stem cell research. The nurse co-ordinators mentioned in the Call will be employed by the IVF clinics and will ensure that the donor couple fully understands the aims of the research and that it might reveal information about their health. The nurse co-ordinators will never become engaged in the research, but will liaise with the researchers to inform them if embryos become available.

  It is illegal in the UK for payment to be made for the donation of gametes (nominal expenses are provided however). MRC will not under any circumstances contribute to the costs of IVF treatment for those couples who choose to donate embryos for research. Donation will be entirely voluntary and by the free will of the couples involved. The decision to donate or not to donate will have no effect on their IVF treatment.

  Additionally, as recommended by the Select Committee, a high level Oversight Body has been established, chaired by Lord Patel, that will be responsible for the custody of stem cell lines, ensuring their purity and provenance, monitoring their use, and for establishing codes of practice for the use of ES cells, whether obtained from the bank or imported from elsewhere. The committee will review on a case by case basis applications to deposit and access ES cell lines and will monitor the use of foetal and adult stem cell lines. The committee reports to MRC Council and will brief Ministers on request.

  Clinics undertaking IVF treatment in the UK were asked whether they were interested in participating in the national stem cell initiative. A list of these clinics is available in the HFEA website (www.hfea.gov.uk). Those that expressed an interest were invited to attend a meeting at MRC Head Office and were subsequently sent an invitation to submit an expression of interest in establishing a consortium to develop collaborations. The process is ongoing, with the deadline for submissions of interest being 31 January 2003. It is not known yet how many applications will be submitted,
  644W
  nor the level of support requested or to be awarded. When awards are made, they will be published on the MRC website in the usual way.

  Stem cell research will be conducted on embryos that are surplus to IVF treatment needs and would otherwise be discarded. The MRC does not know how many surplus embryos are discarded and cannot know how many surplus embryos will be donated for stem cell research.

  Minimum Wage
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans there are to extend coverage of the national minimum wage to under 18s; [90639]

  (2) what plans there are to abolish the development rate for the national minimum wage; [90638]

  (3) if she will estimate the impact of increasing the minimum wage (a) in line with average earnings, (b) to £4.17 per hour, (c) to £4.87 per hour, (d) to £5.00 per hour and (e) to £5.30 per hour, on the cost of salaries of departmental employees (i) in total and (ii) for each nation of the United Kingdom in the next financial year; [90605]

  (4) when the Low Pay Commission will produce its next report; [90637]

  (5) what she estimates the cost to businesses would be of an increase in the national minimum wage from (a) £4.20 to £4.87 and (b) £3.60 to £4.17 in (i) Scotland, (ii) England, (iii) Wales, and (iv) Northern Ireland. [90636]

  Alan Johnson
  We have asked the Low Pay Commission to produce their Fourth Report on the national minimum wage by February 2003 and will carefully consider any recommendations that the Commission make on these issues in that report.

  BAE Systems
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with BAe Systems regarding the sale of the aerostructures division. [90725]

  Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, has had no specific discussions with BAe Systems regarding the sale of the aerostructures division.

  At a meeting in October last year at which a wide range of issues was discussed, representatives of BAe Systems informed me that the future ownership of the company's aerostructures business was under review. On 20 November, the BAe Systems' Board approved a recommendation to divest the aerostructures business and the company made an announcement to this effect on 25 November 2002.

  Syd Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what meetings her Department had with officials of Financial Dynamics since 1 December. [88855]

  Ms Hewitt
  DTI officials attended two meetings with officials of other Government Departments during the past few weeks at which Financial Dynamics representatives were present.

  Electricity Trading and Transmission Arrangements
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when legislation will be introduced to enable the introduction of the BETTA system; and if she will make a statement. [88038]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 19 December 2002]: The Government are committed to bringing forward legislation on the British electricity transmission and trading arrangements (BETTA) as soon as parliamentary time allows. The Government intend to introduce legislation in order to have British Electricity Trading and Transmission Arrangements in place no later than April 2005.

  Business Links
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what(a) rules, (b) guidance and (c) advice she has published on declarations of interest and withdrawal from meetings in respect of the members of boards of Business Links. [90150]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Clauses 7.1 to 7.3 of the Business Link Operator Appointment outlines the responsibilities of Business Link Operators under Corporate Governance and Management. I am sending a copy of these to my hon. Friend and place a copy in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many responses had been received from businesses as a result of the Business Link advertisement campaign before 31 December 2002. [90568]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The main objective of the current Business Link advertising campaign, which was launched in September 2002, is to raise awareness of the business advice service and improve understanding of the variety of professional help available through Business Link.

  The campaign generated an increase of 61 per cent. in weekly calls to our national 0845 telephone number and a 63 per cent. increase in web sessions to businesslink.orgsite.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the estimate is of the costs of the Business Link advertisement campaign by(a) news and print papers, (b) radio and (c) television in the calendar year 2003. [90569]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Costs committed to date for the continuation of the current Business Link advertising campaign are detailed as follows

  £

  (a) News and print papers

  491,533

  (b) Radio

  490,702

  (c) TV

  912,078

  Total

  1,894,313

  The current campaign runs until March 2003. Plans for advertising from April have yet to be agreed.

  Child Care Tax Credit
  Mr Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the advertising campaign on maternity and paternity leave rights will include information about financial support with child care costs. [90769]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The aim of the campaign is to raise awareness among both employers and employees about the new employment legislation which affects both expectant parents and parents with children under six or disabled children under 18.

  The Inland Revenue is already advertising the two new tax credits in the national press and on national television, of which the child tax credit includes an element specifically to help parents with child care costs; and the Department for Work and Pensions produces a booklet, Babies and Children, covering all the benefits for expectant parents and those caring for children, which is freely available from Jobcentre Plus offices and post offices.

  Company Directors (Disqualification)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what grounds courts may disqualify a person from acting as an(a) executive and (b) non-executive company director; and what plans she has to extend them. [89251]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  When it falls to a court to determine whether a person's conduct as a director makes him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company, the court will take into account the circumstances of the case and must have regard in particular to the matters for determining the unfitness of directors set out in Schedule 1 to the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986.

  It is also possible for a court to make a disqualification order on conviction of a relevant indictable offence, for persistent breaches of companies legislation and for fraud discovered in the course of a winding up.

  The effects of disqualification legislation extend to being a director or being concerned or taking part in, directly or indirectly, the promotion, formation or management of a company, except with the leave of the court.

  We have no plans to extend the grounds on which a person may be disqualified.

  Development Agencies
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the level of accountability of development agencies in respect of their use of public money; and if she will make a statement. [88588]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 14 January 2003]: RDAs are non-departmental public bodies which operate under strict HM Treasury rules for all expenditure incurred. The annual accounts of the RDAs are audited by National Audit Office. The RDAs also have their own internal auditors and Government offices monitor payments made to the RDA.
  647W
  The Department also receives monitoring reports from the RDAs on a regular basis to ensure that expenditure is properly incurred. The RDAs set out their broad spending plans in Corporate Plans which are submitted to Government for approval; these Corporate Plans are expected to deliver a number of targets which are set by the DTI in collaboration with other Government Departments to reflect the policy interest of those funding the agencies.

  Nuclear Power
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will calculate the cost of generating one unit of electricity from a new-built(a) nuclear power station, (b) coal-fired power station, (c) gas-fired power station, (d) offshore wind facility and (e) onshore wind facility; assuming average size in each case, and the write-off of capital costs over a 30-year period. [89088]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 8 January 2003]: The costs of generating electricity are a commercial matter for generators.

  Costs can be estimated on a variety of bases, and will vary from plant to plant. For example, figures can include all cost items, including depreciation and return on capital, or can refer only to the additional costs associated with continued operation. The costs of plant using fossil fuel will vary as fuel prices change.

  Estimates of the cost of generating electricity from new and existing coal and gas-fired power stations were published in chapter 5 of the 1998 White Paper, "Conclusions of the Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation"(http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/publications/whitepapers/review_sources/chpt05.pdf)

  This suggested that the cost of new gas-fired generation might be in the range 1.8 to 2.2p/kWh, and new coal stations between 2.6 and 3.25p/kWh.

  More recent estimates of the cost of generation costs from different types of plant are contained in the PIU Energy Review and a report by an inter-departmental analysts group, both of which were published in February 2002.

  The PIU estimated the costs of gas-fired generation, new nuclear build and onshore and offshore wind generation as follows:

  Estimated generation cost (p/k Wh)

  Gas

  2 to 2.3

  Nuclear

  2.5 to 4

  Onshore wind

  1.5 to 2.5

  Offshore wind

  2 to 3

  Note:

  Estimate for onshore and offshore wind are for developments in 2020 and exclude additional costs occurring as a result of their intermittent nature.

  Both reports are available in the Libraries of the House.

  http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/innovation/2002/energy/report/index.htm

  http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/greenhousegas/index.shtml

  Post Office
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her Department is doing to promote the services of the post office network among other Departments who use its services. [88879]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 14 January 2003]: The nationwide reach of the post office network represents a valuable channel for delivery of Government and other services. Post offices are traditionally the place where customers go to transact a range of Government business.

  As recommended by the PIU report on the future of the post office network published in June 2000, Government provided the necessary support to enable Post Office Ltd. to test the concept of post offices as Government General Practitioners. DTI contributed £25 million to the cost of running the Your Guide pilot in Leicestershire and Rutland between July 2001 and March 2002. The outcomes of the pilot were thoroughly evaluated and a report was published last July. Although this indicated that a publicly funded national Your Guide service on the lines of that piloted would not provide value for money, and we have therefore decided not to roll it out, Your Guide has highlighted the potential for Government Departments to deliver services through post offices in future. The Department has been encouraging contact between other Departments and the Post Office concerning such services and has drawn the Departments' attention to a commercial kiosk service, based on kiosks in retail outlets—including some sub-post offices—which is expected to be piloted in Cornwall later this year.

  Ultimately it is for individual Departments and Post Office Ltd. to decide whether or not to pursue these initiatives. But we will ensure that Post Office Ltd. continues to work closely with other Government Departments to develop and promote the services of the network as appropriate.

  Post Office Card Account
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her Department's role in approving Post Office Ltd's communications with customers concerning the new post office card account. [90687]

  Mr. Timms
  Communication with customers about the card account at the Post Office is an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. I understand from the company that one leaflet on child benefit has been distributed to post offices for issue to customers.

  Postage Stamps
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make it illegal for retailers to sell postage stamps for less than the face value. [90686]

  Mr. Timms
  Retailers purchase books of stamps on a wholesale basis from the Royal Mail for resale in their outlets. As with other products acquired in quantity for resale purposes, it is for the retailer to decide whether they wish to sell the item for less than the face value. I have no plans to propose changes in this area.

  Postal Services (Romford)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to improve postal services in Romford. [90294]

  Mr. Timms
  These are matters that fall within the day to day responsibility of Royal Mail and I have therefore asked the Chairman to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on postal services in Romford. [90295]

  Mr. Timms
  These are matter that fall within the day to day responsibility of Royal Mail and I have therefore asked the Chairman to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Redundancy Payments Office
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total sums(a) claimed and (b) paid out by the Redundancy Payments Office were in each month over the last two years in respect of (a) redundancy pay, (b) holiday pay, (c) notice pay and (d) unpaid wages. [90688]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 14 January 2003]: The Redundancy Payments Service claim forms ask claimants for pay and other details of their former employment but not the amount of the claim, which is calculated by the service's computer system. The following table shows the total sums paid out for each of the months and categories specified.

  Payments made by the Redundancy Payments Service

  £000

  Arrears of pay1

  Compensatory notice pay1

  Holiday1

  Redundancy1

  2001

  January

  2,221

  8,497

  1,809

  9,946

  February

  2,142

  6,569

  1,481

  8,995

  March

  3,442

  8,762

  1,925

  11.334

  April

  2,692

  7,405

  1,416

  8,408

  May

  2,513

  7,865

  1,777

  9,057

  June

  2,217

  10,235

  2,076

  10,097

  July

  2,015

  8,632

  1,667

  7,761

  August

  2,490

  7,507

  2,140

  10,551

  September

  2,454

  7,211

  1,831

  11,156

  October

  3,198

  11,197

  2,018

  11,650

  November

  2,932

  7,854

  1,933

  8,627

  December

  2,117

  6,317

  1,596

  9,241

  2002

  January

  2,749

  10,898

  2,366

  10,144

  February

  3,396

  12,298

  2,242

  10,817

  March

  2,625

  9,672

  1,472

  10,186

  April

  3,070

  10,619

  1,857

  12,039

  May

  2,494

  10,108

  2,019

  11,263

  June

  2,158

  8,908

  1,708

  7,499

  July

  3,328

  10,969

  2,206

  9,864

  August

  1,963

  8,459

  1,781

  8,119

  September

  3,112

  9,847

  2,667

  12,885

  October

  2,974

  10,477

  2,163

  11,539

  November

  2,972

  11,116

  2,075

  11,917

  December

  2,178

  8,187

  1,730

  9,567

  1Gross payments before the deduction of tax and national insurance contributions.

  Science Funding
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what metrics she uses to assess the 650W
  economic benefits of Government expenditure on science (a) as a whole and (b) in respect of individual programmes. [87843]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 17 December 2002]: The Government believes that investment in science research generates substantial benefits for society and the economy. The main vehicle for Government investment in basic and strategic research is the Science Budget. The metrics that are used to measure the performance of the UK Science and Engineering Base as a whole at present are:-

  (a) Quality: measured by the UK's ranking in terms of citations.

  (b) Relevance: the proportion of HEI funding from non governmental sources.

  (c) Cost-effectiveness: measured by the UK's ranking in terms of the number of papers published per £1 million of public expenditure on science.

  One mechanism through which investment in the Science Base is translated into economic benefit is through the knowledge transfer activities of the Science and Engineering Base. Metrics in this area include:

  (a) Trends in numbers of patents applied for

  (b) Trends in the number of licensing agreements

  (c) Trends in income from licensing Intellectual property rights

  (d) Metrics of spin-outs

  (e) Trends in RC income from the UK private sector

  (f) Trends in co-publication with industry

  In addition Government Departments, including DTI, fund scientific research programmes in support of their objectives. This type of research will be evaluated primarily in terms of its contribution to the achievement of the relevant departmental policy or regulatory goals, rather than its overall economic impact as such. The Government is keen however to see that any economic benefits flowing from such research are properly exploited. To that end the Government's science, engineering and technology strategy, "Investing in Innovation" published in July 2002, made recommendations for strengthening departmental mechanisms for ensuring appropriate knowledge transfer.

  Sickness Absence
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many days per employee have been lost through sickness in each year since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [88828]

  Alan Johnson
  Estimates of the number of days lost through sickness and injury per employee are available from the Labour Force Survey. However, figures are only available on a consistent basis from 2000 onwards and data for 2002 are not yet available.

  In 2000, 4.4 working days were lost on average through sickness and injury per employee. In 2001, 4.3 working days were lost on average per employee.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many Statutory Instruments subject to negative procedure made by her Department(a) came into force and (b) were considered by a delegated legislation committee in each of the last three sessions. [88036]
  651W
  Ms Hewitt
  The information is as follows:

  Number of SIs

  Session

  (a) subject to negative procedure, coming into force

  (b) considered by a designated legislation committee

  1999–2000

  173

  3

  2000–01

  49

  1

  2001–02

  109

  0

  Note:

  All SIs were considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. However those in column (b) were also considered by a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many statutory instruments have been issued by her Department in each calendar year since 1979. [89839]

  Ms Hewitt
  The number of statutory instruments issued by my Department in each calendar year are as follows:

  Number of statutory instruments issued

  1990

  144

  1991

  150

  1992

  106

  1993

  87

  1994

  138

  1995

  112

  1996

  122

  1997

  128

  1998

  135

  1999

  176

  2000

  146

  2001

  126

  2002

  128

  Note:

  Figures between 1979 and 1989 are not available.

  Veterinary Medicines
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment she has made of the Competition Commission's provisional conclusions and hypothetical remedies contained in its inquiry into the pricing of prescription-only medicines; what assessment she has made of the effect of the inquiry's initial proposals on the(a) ability to dispense and (b) profitability of (i) small animal and (ii) large animal veterinary practices; and if she will make a statement; [88722]

  (2) when the findings of the Competition Commission's inquiry into the pricing of prescription-only veterinary medicines will be published; and if she will make a statement. [88721]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Competition Commission's statement of provisional conclusions and hypothetical remedies was made public to inform interested parties in case they wished to make further representations to the Commission in the course of the inquiry. Therefore, it would not have been appropriate for DTI Ministers to make any assessment or statement until after receipt of the final report.
  652W
  The Competition Commission's draft final report on the supply of prescription only veterinary medicines was sent to DTI on 8 January 2003. The administrative target is to publish within 10 weeks of receipt.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Register of Interests
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners if he will place in the Library a copy of the Register of Interests of the Church Commissioners; for what reason the Register of Interests of the Church Commissioners is not(a) available for inspection by the general public, (b) published and (c) available by photocopy on payment of a reasonable fee; and to what Government commitments to openness and freedom of information the Church of England is bound by reason if its establishment. [89655]

  Mr. Bell
  Although the Commissioners are not bound by the type of Government commitment to which the hon. Gentleman refers, the Board of Governors agreed in May 2000 to establish a members' Code of Conduct and Register of Interests in line with good practice.

  This is freely available by appointment to any Member of Parliament, Government official or General Synod member, which reflects the Commissioners' accountability to both bodies.

  I will arrange for a copy of it to be placed in the library.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact upon voluntary organisations in receipt of European Social Fund and other funding sources of the withdrawal of the work concession for asylum-seekers for whom no decision had been made in six months and the consequent loss of grant to voluntary organisations offering services to those groups. [R]. [89779]

  Beverley Hughes
  Operation of the European Social Fund is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions who has said that there will be no impact on voluntary organisations that have ensured that their European Social Fund projects support only those people eligible to benefit from the fund.

  Fast asylum decision making will mean that asylum seekers who receive positive decisions will be able to access the full range of projects very quickly and so the impact on projects aimed at asylum seekers who would previously have been granted permission to work will be minimal.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the level of awareness of asylum-seekers and those
  653W
  organisations working with them of the learning and volunteering opportunities which are no longer open to them. [R][89781]

  Beverley Hughes
  We are keen to see asylum seekers make a positive use of their time while waiting for their claim for asylum to be assessed. A range of opportunities are available to all asylum seekers regardless of the state of their claim and asylum seekers are also able to contribute to their communities through voluntary work.

  Faster decision making will ensure that asylum seekers receiving positive decisions will be able to access a full range of opportunities at a far earlier stage than previously was the case.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the potential for(a) underspending on this year's European Social Fund allocation to organisations working with asylum-seekers, (b) capacity to meet agreed ESF targets, and (c) implications for future ESF allocations, following the withdrawal of the work concession for asylum-seekers who do not have a decision after six months. [R][89785]

  Beverley Hughes
  The operation of the European Social Fund (ESF) is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions who has said that, where necessary, allocation to organisations working with asylum seekers will be absorbed by other beneficiaries, and there is not expected to be any change to capacity to meet ESF targets, and there are not expected to be implications for future ESF allocations.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 4 November from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Imad Osman Ahmid. [89237]

  Beverley Hughes
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend about this case on 15 January 2003.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter to the Minister of State from the hon. Member for Colchester of 27th November 2002. [90280]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]: I wrote to the hon. Member on 13 January 2003.

  Domestic Violence
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases power of arrest has been used in cases involving domestic violence in each UK region in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [88312]

  Hilary Benn
  Information from the Best Value Performance Indicators for the police service for April 2001—March 2002 on the number of people that have been arrested for domestic violence is as follows.
  654W

  Police Force

  Domestic violence persons arrested

  Avon and Somerset

  1,499

  Bedfordshire

  1,182

  Cambridgeshire

  N/A

  Cheshire

  844

  City of London

  17

  Cleveland

  1,207

  Cumbria

  812

  Derbyshire

  N/A

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,808

  Dorset

  615

  Durham

  1,971

  Dyfed-Powys

  879

  Essex

  972

  Gloucestershire

  N/A

  Greater Manchester

  4,205

  Gwent

  401

  Hampshire

  N/A

  Hertfordshire

  N/A

  Humberside

  746

  Kent

  2,438

  Lancashire

  2,376

  Leicestershire

  N/A

  Lincolnshire

  N/A

  Merseyside

  N/A

  Metropolitan Police

  6,265

  Norfolk

  1,326

  Northamptonshire

  398

  Northumbria

  5,663

  North Wales

  1,889

  North Yorkshire

  648

  Nottinghamshire

  N/A

  South Wales

  2,179

  South Yorkshire

  N/A

  Staffordshire

  3,636

  Suffolk

  19

  Surrey

  N/A

  Sussex

  3,313

  Thames Valley

  583

  Warwickshire

  N/A

  West Mercia

  N/A

  West Midlands

  7,025

  West Yorkshire

  76

  Wiltshire

  1,125

  England and Wales

  57,117

  N/A—Figures not available.

  Domestic violence itself is not a criminal offence and offenders are charged under a number of different offences (assault, GBH etc). Police forces have to examine individual crime reports in order to identify these crimes, and to identify which resulted in arrests. It is expected that rollout of new IT should enable all forces to produce this data in due course.

  Drugs Crime
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of crime in the(a) Twickenham constituency, (b) London Borough of Richmond upon Thames and (c) London in 2001 was deemed to be drug related; and if he will make a statement. [88824]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]: Recorded crime figures include statistics on drugs offences, such as possession, and on acquisitive crimes, such as burglary, but do not record whether the latter are related to an offender's drug habits.

  However, the New English and Welsh Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (NEW-ADAM) research programme, which involves interviewing and drug testing those arrested by the police, confirms a link between drug misuse and crime. The conclusions do not

  655W
  relate specifically to Twickenham or Richmond-uponThames, although two of the eight sites were in London (Bethnal Green and Hammersmith). Analysis of the data from the first eight sites in the survey, collected during 1999–2000, shows that 65 per cent. of arrestees provided a urine sample that tested positive for one or more illegal drug. The analysis also shows that up to 29 per cent. of arrestees tested positive for opiates (including heroin) and/or cocaine (including crack).

  As a guide to the proportion of crime that is drug-related, analysis of the NEW-ADAM self-report data indicates that while only 21 per cent. of non-drug using arrestees reportedhaving previously offended in the past 12 months, this figure rises to 75 per cent. for those arrestees who use heroin and/or cocaine/crack. Moreover, while users of both heroin and cocaine/crack represented just under one quarter of all arrestees interviewed, they were responsible for more than three fifths of all the illegal income reported.

  In support of this, 55 per cent. of arrestees who reported using one or more drugs in the last 12 months and committing one or more acquisitive crimes, acknowledged a link between their drug use and their offending behaviour. This proportion rose to 78 per cent. for arrestees who said they had used heroin and cocaine/crack.

  Green Ministers
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which Minister in his Department is nominated Green Minister; how often he has attended meetings of the Green Ministers; and which official has responsibility for the Defra rural proofing checklist in his Department. [88462]

  Beverley Hughes
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lord Filkin) for Race Equality, Community Policy and European and International Policy represents the Home Office on the Ministers' Committee ENV (G). It is not the policy of Government Departments to disclose details of Ministers' attendance of meetings. Policy responsibility for rural proofing lies in the Home Office with the Public Order and Reassurance Unit.

  Oakington
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the weekly cost of providing the facilities at the Immigration Reception Centre, Oakington. [89797]

  Beverley Hughes
  The estimated weekly cost of providing the facilities at Oakington in 2001–02, the last full year for which information was available, was £288,000. The comparable (provisional) figure for the first six months of 2002–03 was £294,000.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the unit cost is of processing asylum applications at the Immigration Reception Centre, Oakington, Cambridgeshire. [89799]

  Beverley Hughes
  The unit cost of processing a principal asylum application at Oakington reception centre in 2001–02, the last full year for which figures 656W
  are available, was £1,515. The comparable provisional figure for the first six months of 2002–03 was an estimated £1,247.

  Motor Vehicle Abandonment
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) prosecutions and (b) convictions for abandoning a motor vehicle there were in each London borough in each of the last five years. [89407]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Court proceedings information held centrally on the offence of dumping, under the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978, cannot separately identify the dumping of motor vehicles from the dumping of anything other than a motor vehicle.

  Information is not collected by London borough. Available data are therefore given in the table for the Metropolitan Police area.

  Number of proceedings and total findings of guilt for the offence of unauthorised dumping1within the Metropolitan Police area, 1998–2001

  Number of offences

  Total proceedings

  Total findings of guilt

  1998

  11

  8

  1999

  42

  32

  2000

  30

  29

  2001

  18

  17

  1An offence under the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 section 2 (covers motor vehicles and other).

  Note:

  1997 data not available

  Road Haulage Industry (Illegal Immigrants)
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with road haulage companies regarding the security of vehicles against illegal immigrants. [90324]

  Beverley Hughes
  There was widespread consultation with the transport industry prior to the introduction, in April 2000, of the regime under which road hauliers and others may receive penalties for the carriage of clandestine entrants to the United Kingdom. That consultation included how road hauliers could secure their vehicles against unauthorised entry.

  Since the regime was introduced, and during the recent passage through Parliament of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act, which brought in an amended regime from 8 December 2002, there has been frequent correspondence and meetings with the industry, both at ministerial and official level.

  Responsibility for securing vehicles against unauthorised entry lies with transport operators. Those who take the measures described in the "Prevention of Clandestine Entry Code of Practice" will greatly reduce both the risk of carrying clandestine entrants to the United Kingdom and of receiving a penalty should they do so. Compliance with the Code is promoted strongly in all our dealings with the industry and this message was reinforced more recently in the awareness raising campaign that took place in the weeks leading to the implementation of the amended penalty regime.
  657W
  During the course of administering the penalty provisions, officials often give advice on an individual basis to companies about the level of vehicle security expected, and about compliance with the Code of Practice. The Code is available on the Home Office Website as well as on request from the Civil Penalty Central Administration Unit by telephoning 020 8745 6006.

  Police (Bromley)
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many police officers there were in the London borough of Bromley in each year since 1973; [89803]

  (2) how many special constables there were in the London borough of Bromley in each year since 1973; and how many police support staff there were in each year over the same period. [89804]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 14 January 2003]: This information is not centrally collected. The deployment of resources between the London borough divisions is an operational matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  Information on the number of police officers, special constables and civilian support staff for each force can be found in the Annual Reports of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary until 1995–96. Thereafter the data can be found in Home Office Statistical Bulletins on police strength in England and Wales from March 1998, copies of which are in the Library.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convicted prisoners there were in England and Wales in the last period for which figures are available; how many were(a) United Kingdom nationals, (b) nationals of another EU state and (c) nationals of other states; and how many, when sentenced, had no current right of abode in the United Kingdom. [90358]

  Hilary Benn
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]: On 31 October 2002 there were 63,772 convicted prisoners in prisons in England and Wales. 57,019 of these were UK nationals, 653 were from EU member states, 5,852 were from non-member states, and 248 have no recorded nationality. These figures exclude non-criminal prisoners and fine defaulters.

  Information on how many prisoners had a current right of abode is not available.

  Sex Offenders
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are subject to the registration under the sex offender list 1997, as amended, solely for(a) offences that were decriminalised by the Sexual Offences Amendment list 2001 and (b) offences that the Government proposes to decriminalise or downgrade in its White Paper on Reform of Sexual Offences. [89660]
  658W
  Hilary Benn
  Although the notification requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 are commonly known as 'the register or sex offenders', there is, in fact, no central register from which this information could be obtained.

  It is not possible to say how many individuals in the categories specified are subject to the notification requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 (the register). This is because not all those convicted or cautioned for buggery or gross indecency at present will be required to register. A person becomes subject to the Act's requirements in a variety of circumstances following a conviction or a caution for buggery or gross indecency.

  Whether offenders convicted of buggery and gross indecency must register

  Offence

  Offender under 20

  Offender over 20 and victim/other party over 18

  Offender over 20 and victim/other party under 18

  Buggery

  Never

  Only where sentence longer than 30 months

  Always

  Gross indecency

  Never

  Only where sentence longer than 30 months

  Always

  Criminal statistics do not record the circumstances of the offence with a sufficient degree of detail to say for each offence how many individuals will be affected. Moreover, the requirements on some offenders who were cautioned or convicted on or since the implementation of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 will since have lapsed.

  Terrorism
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent tests have been conducted to establish the reaction time of the emergency services in the event of a terrorist attack. [88408]

  Mr. Denham
  In addition to regular training undertaken by the emergency services, the Home Office national counter-terrorist exercise programme is centred on three large-scale live exercises involving participants from Central Government, the police, military and specialist scientific or technical assistance if required.

TREASURY

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his most recent estimate was of the number of people, broken down by age and sex, who have never worked. [90817]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from J. Pullinger to Mr. Frank Field, dated 15 January 2003:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of people who have never worked. I am replying in his absence. (90817)
  659W
  The attached table gives the information requested for the three month period ending August 2002. These estimates are from the Labour Force Survey (LFS).

  People who have never had paid work1, by sex and age United Kingdom, June to August 2002

  Thousands, not seasonally adjusted

  All persons

  Male

  Female

  All aged 16 +

  2,462

  1,012

  1,450

  All of working age2

  2,203

  996

  1,208

  16–17

  777

  416

  361

  18–24

  843

  417

  427

  25–34

  283

  94

  189

  35–49

  222

  54

  168

  50–64(m)/50–59(w)

  77

  14

  63

  65 + (m)/60+ (w)

  259

  17

  242

  1Paid work excluding casual or holiday work but including periods of self-employment or support by a Government training and employment programme.

  2Men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59.

  Note:

  These Labour Force Survey (LFS) estimates are Not Seasonally Adjusted (NSA) and have not yet been adjusted to take account of the recent Census 2001 results.

  Source:

  ONS—Labour Force Survey

  Barristers' Fees
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will explain the policy reasons for the special tax point regime for VAT due on barristers' fees; and if he will make a statement. [90422]

  John Healey
  The VAT tax point rules for barristers were introduced at the start of VAT in recognition of the fact that usually fees are still subject to negotiation after completion of the work and barristers are mostly unable to sue for unpaid fees.

  Capita Group
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the contracts that have been awarded to the Capita Group by his Department. [89974]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information is as follows.

  Department/number

  Description

  HMT (1)

  Recruitment of Staff

  IR (2)

  Two Management consultancy frameworks let in 2002

  HMCE (39)

  Maximum return on Investment Training

  Membership Subscription

  Promoting Flexible Working Practices

  Managing Change Training

  e-Learning Training

  Leadership Training

  GORS Selection Interview Training

  Training Administration Introduction

  NLP Training

  IT Tests

  Talent Spotting

  Professional Skills for SEC

  Business Writing

  Taking Responsibility Training

  Civil Service Reform Training

  AA/AO Assessment Tests

  Training Evaluation

  Legal Trainees

  Fast Stream Recruitment

  Advanced Assertiveness for Managers Training

  660W

  Department/number

  Description

  Complaints Training

  Henry V and Inspirational Leadership

  Positive Image Training

  Assistant Print Buyer

  Access to Personal Information Training

  Time Management Training

  Data Protection Training

  Belfast Building Work

  Diagnostic Internal Communications Manager

  Feedback

  RAS Helpline

  Thinking on your feet

  GLS Lawyers Recruitment

  Human Resources Manager

  Communication Training

  Internal Communications Manager

  Effective Middle Management

  Human Resources

  Customer Contact Centre Advisor

  OGC (1)

  Capita Property Consultancy are appointed to provide property related advice and services under the terms of a framework agreement.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the running costs of(a) the Department and (b) each of its sponsored agencies were in (i) 1997 and (ii) the most recent year for which figures are available. [90705]

  Ruth Kelly
  Detailed information on administration costs for HM Treasury and its agencies, going back to 1998–99 and with projections to 2003–04, is set out in Table 5, annex B, of the 2002 departmental report (Cm 5425). Data for years before 1998–99 are not available on the same basis. Provisional outturn for gross and net administration costs limits were published in "Public Expenditure 2001–02 Provisional Outturn" (Cm 5574), Tables 4 and 5. Updated information, with plans to 2005–06, will be published in the 2003 departmental report in the spring.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what distribution of his Department's whole-time equivalent staff was, including the staff in agencies and other bodies reporting to him, in each Government office region and nation of the UK(a) in 1996 and (b) at the most recent available period. [90466]

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many full-time equivalent staff are employed in(a) the Department and (b) each of the agencies it sponsors; and what the figures were for 1997. [90665]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman to the answer the Minister of State, Cabinet Office is giving today.

  Honours and Dignities
  Norman Lamb
  To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will break down by main spending heads(a) salaries and (b) ceremonial expenses paid for by his Department under its provision for honours and dignities, as set out on page 55 of the HM Treasury Departmental Report 2002. [89263]
  661W
  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 7 January 2003]: Honours and dignities are normally awarded by HM the Queen on the advice of the Ceremonial Secretariat of the Cabinet Office. For historical reasons spending is included in the Treasury's Estimate. Estimated spending by the Central Chancery of the Orders of Knighthood (CCOK) for the financial year 2002–03 breaks down as follows:

  £

  Admin expenses of CCOK, including salaries

  469,100

  Cost of Insignia issued

  459,700

  George Cross annuities

  18,200

  Other Ceremonial costs

  69,000

  Total

  11,016,000

  1Net of £7,000 appropriations-in-aid.

  Income Tax
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenue yield of a 50 per cent. income tax rate on(a) taxable incomes and (b) gross incomes exceeding £100,000 per annum; if he will estimate in each case the (i) income tax and (ii) capital gains tax yield; and if he will make a statement. [90175]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The full-year yield in 2003–04 of making the changes are set out in the table.

  (i) income tax yield (£ billion)

  (ii) capital gains tax yield (£ million)

  (a) 50 per cent. rate for taxable incomes over £100,000

  4.9

  120

  (b) 50 per cent. rate for gross incomes over £100.000

  5.1

  120

  The income tax estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with the November 2002 Pre-Budget Report. These estimates exclude any behavioural response to the tax change.

  Capital gains tax estimates take into account the likely effect on yield of changes in the volume of disposals in a full year caused by taxpayers' behaviour.

  Inheritance Tax
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to ensure that inheritance tax is paid on the same basis by all residents of the United Kingdom. [90251]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Inheritance tax is payable on the world-wide estate of those who die domiciled in the UK, or are treated as domiciled here by virtue of their length of residence.

  Loans (Second World War)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what financial payments are being made to the United States of America in respect of loans and other financial assistance given to the UK during the Second World War. [90361]
  662W
  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) on 28 February 2002,official Report, columns 1437–39W.

  Table B19 in the Supplementary Statements to the Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund Accounts for 2001–02, presented to Parliament on 19 December 2002, provides the latest published data on these loans (HC 113, Session 2002–03).

  Lorry Charges
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made regarding the introduction of a lorry road user charge for non-UK vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [90461]

  John Healey
  The Government announced that it intends to introduce a lorry road user charge in 2005 or 2006 based on distance travelled. All haulage vehicles on UK roads will be subject to the charge, including UK operators as well as those from overseas. However, we are committed to ensuring that the UK haulage industry will not pay more as a result of the introduction of the charge and will introduce offsetting tax reductions for the industry.

  As announced in the recent pre-Budget report, the Government will publish a second progress report in the near future. This will outline the results of the work on how to implement and procure the charge and offsetting tax cuts.

  Manufacturing Exports
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the value of manufacturing exports from companies in(a) the Scottish Borders, (b) Scotland and (c) the UK in each of the last 10 years. [90371]

  Ruth Kelly
  The estimates for the value of manufacturing exports to EU and non-EU countries for 1993—September 2002 (year to date) are provided in the following table.

  £ million

  Year

  UK total

  Scotland

  Scottish Borders

  1993

  80,475

  N/A

  N/A

  1994

  92,212

  N/A

  N/A

  1995

  107,073

  N/A

  N/A

  1996

  118,371

  10,482

  205

  1997

  123,887

  11,692

  190

  1998

  120,966

  13,013

  150

  1999

  120,294

  13,978

  102

  2000

  132,433

  15,596

  129

  2001

  133,380

  16,127

  145

  20021

  98,320

  10,236

  86

  1Year to date

  Note: Regional trade estimates are not available for the period 1993–96. The Scottish Borders relates to the 'Scottish Borders' district council. The UK total figures are reproduced from the Overseas Trade Statistics time series, published by HM Customs and Excise

  Musical Instruments (VAT)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much he estimates will be raised in the current financial year from the levying of value added tax on musical instruments. [90360]

  John Healey
  It is not possible to provide the requested estimate. Customs and Excise do not disaggregate VAT receipts to this level of specific commodity detail.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many employees in Scotland pay national insurance. [90392]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government Actuary's Department is not able to produce reliable estimates of the number of employees paying national insurance in Scotland.

  Tax Relief
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the revenue yield of abolishing taper relief for financial years 2003–04 and 2004–05 and reintroducing indexation and retirement relief; and if he will make a statement. [90174]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Consistent with the assumptions of the November 2002 Pre-Budget Report forecast, the full year yield in 2003–04 from re-introducing indexation and retirement relief and abolishing taper relief is estimated to be £200 million. Information for 2004–05 is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Tobacco Products (Revenue)
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated annual consumption of tobacco products was in each of the last five years. [90274]

  John Healey
  Estimates of the quantities of cigarettes consumed in each of the last three full financial years are given in Table 3.3 of "Measuring Indirect Tax Losses", published by HM Customs and Excise in November 2002, and available in the Library of the House. Corresponding consumption estimates for the two years 1997–98 and 1998–99 are 85.5 billion cigarette sticks and 83 billion respectively.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the President of the Council how many statutory instruments have been issued by his Department in each calendar year since 1979. [89846]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number

  1979

  10

  1980

  14

  1981

  4

  1982

  3

  664W

  Number

  1983

  6

  1984

  11

  1985

  8

  1986

  5

  1987

  9

  1988

  6

  1989

  9

  1990

  4

  1991

  4

  1992

  2

  1993

  3

  1994

  11

  1995

  6

  1996

  11

  1997

  5

  1998

  9

  1999

  14

  2000

  21

  2001

  11

  2002

  7

  Notes:

  1. For the period 1979 to 1998, statutory instruments were issued by the President of the Council.

  2. Figures from 1999 include those issued by the Office of Leader of the House of Commons. Previously, this task was undertaken by the Cabinet Office.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Employers' Liability Insurance
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 10 December 2002,official Report, column 262W, on insurance, what the timetable for the review of the operation of employers' liability compulsory insurance will be. [87793]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  I refer the hon. Member to the written ministerial statement I gave on 12 December 2002,official Report, columns 23–24WS, which said that the review would report to Ministers in spring 2003.

  New Deal Costs
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts),official Report, 9 December 2002, column 140W, on New Deal costs, how much of the windfall tax revenue has been allocated to (a) welfare-to-work programmes and (b) other items; and how much remains unallocated. [89855]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]: Information on the allocation of the windfall tax is in the Pre-Budget Report published in November 2002, which is available in the Library.

  Public Sector Workers (Compulsory Retirement)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action he is taking to prevent public sector workers from facing compulsory retirement at age 60; and if he will make a statement. [90218]

  Mr. McCartney
  In the recent Pensions Green Paper, "Simplicity, Security and Choice: Working and Saving for Retirement" (Cm 5677), we have proposed that the rules of public sector pension schemes should be
  665W
  changed over the next few years to make an unreduced pension payable from a normal pension age of 65 rather than 60 in respect of all new members.

  Under age legislation to be implemented by 2006, compulsory retirement ages are likely to be unlawful unless employers can show that they are objectively justified. The Department for Trade and Industry will be consulting further, later in the year, on the proposals for age legislation.

  In the meantime, we will build on the work already done through promotion of the Code of Practice for Age Diversity in Employment and the Age Positive campaign. The Government will continue to encourage all employers, including those in the public sector, to review their retirement policies to allow people who want to work beyond normal retirement age, and should they wish, beyond state pension age, to do so.

  In the Department, staff below the Senior Civil Service are able to choose to remain in employment beyond the age of 60 for any period up to the age of 65. The Department's flexible approach to age retirement allows staff to continue to work in their current grade and, subject to business need, to seek promotion to a higher grade or volunteer to down grade. Subject to business need, staff may also choose to work full-time or part-time. Senior civil servants can apply to work beyond age 60 where there is a business need.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Building Regulations (Home Energy Efficiency)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what training will be provided for building control officers to enable them to enforce the requirements of Part L of the new Building Regulations for England and Wales. [90803]

  Mr. Leslie
  Training of building control officers to equip them for the proper discharge of their enforcement duties is a matter for local authorities and approved inspectors. However, the office of the Deputy Prime Minister co-operates closely with these bodies and the professional institutions to facilitate training whenever amendments to the building regulations are made. Regarding Part L, my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich made arrangements for the publication of the new requirements almost a year before they came into effect, and officials gave presentations of the new provisions at many events in months preceding the effective date.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of new buildings constructed between July and September 2002 were built to the new thermal standards in Part L of the Building Regulations for England and Wales. [90804]

  Mr. Leslie
  The information requested is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The new thermal standards were introduced by SI 2001:3335 and came into effect on 1 April 2002, subject to transitional provisions. These provided that any planned new building that had received building control approval before 1 April 2002, or which had started on site before that date, could 666W
  proceed in accordance with the previous standards. All planned new buildings notified to the local authority under the Building Act on or after 1 April 2002 must comply with the new requirements. Between July and September 2002, there will thus have been some buildings being constructed to the old standards and some to the new standards. There is no centrally collected information on the proportions of new buildings in each category.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress has been made in the procurement of a national radio network for the fire service; and when he expects the budget to be complete. [90434]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A notice announcing the procurement was published in the official journal of the European Communities on 24 October 2002, approximately three months ahead of schedule. As a result 45 companies requested pre-qualification documentation. Subsequently 33 companies submitted a response; of these 17 wished to be considered as the main contractor and 13 as possible subcontractors. The evaluation of these responses is continuing and due to be completed during February 2003. Invitations to submit formal proposals will be issued to the pre-qualified organisations in May 2003.

  The budget for the ongoing costs of the project team is complete already: it is being funded from within the office of the Deputy Prime Minister resources. The budget for the main project investment will be in place before contracts fall to be signed, in financial year 2004–05.

  David Davis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when fire fighting personnel, including those military personnel on Operation FRESCO, have been redeployed from their home fire stations in each month since October 2002; and whether such stations are classified(a) rural and (b) urban. [90223]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Fire service redeployments are arranged at local level and are not recorded by Her Majesty's Fire Service Inspectorate. In a number of fire brigades responsibility rests at station level to arrange short term redeployments to maintain crewing on a day by day basis. In such cases the overall crewing level for the brigade would be recorded, but individual movements would not be directly measured. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is not aware of any significant movement between rural or urban areas.

  Armed Forces personnel were not attached to individual fire stations.

  Housing Need (Children)
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to meet the housing needs of(a) homeless children and (b) families with children living in poor housing. [88540]

  Mrs. Roche
  Homeless children under the age of 16, are the responsibility of social services. Under the homelessness legislation, as amended by the Homelessness (Priority Need for Accommodation) (England) Order 2002 and the Homelessness Act 2002
  667W
  which both came into force on 31 July 2002, local housing authorities in England must ensure that suitable accommodation is available for children aged 16 or 17 who are homeless through no fault of their own (unless they are a relevant child for the purposes of the Children Act 1989 and the responsibility of social services).

  In terms of supporting families with children, in March 2002 the Government announced a commitment that by March 2004 local authorities shall ensure that no homeless family with children is in a Bed and Breakfast hotel (B&B) other than in an emergency, and even then for no more than six weeks.

  High B&B using councils have been required to submit action plans on how they intend to meet this commitment. The Homelessness Directorate is working closely with these and other lower using councils on delivery of these action plans. This has been supported by a £35 million grant programme in 2002–03 together with changes to housing benefit subsidy implemented by the Department for Work and Pensions.

  For 2003–04 the Homelessness Directorate will allocate up to a further £15 million to help authorities meet the March 2004 B&B commitment.

  On 3 December, I announced that the Government intends to outlaw the use of B&Bs for homeless families except in an emergency. The Government will be consulting in due course on options for strengthening the homelessness legislation by Order and through statutory guidance to:
  end the use of privately owned B&B establishments as temporary accommodation for homeless families with children except in emergencies and even then for no more than six weeks;
  set minimum accommodation fitness and proposed management standards in all temporary accommodation used by local authorities to house homeless households;
  set additional fitness standards for shared facility (B&B) type privately owned temporary accommodation used by local authorities to house homeless households.

  The Government has set a target to bring all social housing up to a decent standard and to increase the proportion of private housing occupied by vulnerable groups that is in a decent condition by 2010.

  The Government has also announced a new house-building programme worth more than £1.2 billion, up £365 million on the current year. The extra funds have been allocated to the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme (ADP) and should deliver up to 21,000 affordable homes in 2003–04.

  Light Pollution
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent planning policy guidance he has issued on light pollution. [90388]

  Mr. McNulty
  A specific Planning Policy Guidance Note on light pollution has not been issued. However, in 1997, the Government issued "Lighting in the Countryside: Towards Good Practice". This document gives advice on the adverse effects of lighting schemes associated with development, both in the countryside and in the urban context.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the cost, by English regions, of re-organising local government, should a decision be made to establish a regional assembly. [90701]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has made no estimate of the cost of reorganising local government in the English regions as this will vary significantly, dependent on which regions opt for elected Regional Assemblies, the extent of two tier authorities in these regions, the changes recommended by the Boundary Committee for England and subsequent decisions made by the newly created authorities about their organisational structure and levels of service provision. As indicated in the draft guidance to the Boundary Committee on which the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently consulting. A model is being developed to be available to the Boundary Committee, or those making proposals to the Committee, to assess the relative cost differentials of different unitary structures.

  Deprived Urban Post Office Fund
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his definition is of 'urban deprived' for the purpose of distribution of the Post Office Fund for Urban Deprived Areas; and if he will make a statement. [90043]

  Mr. McNulty
  For the purpose of distribution of the Deprived Urban Post Office Fund, an urban area is a ward in a community of over 10,000 people, while a deprived area is a ward in the 20 per cent. most deprived wards in England, as measured by the indices of Deprivation 2000.

  The Indices of Deprivation 2000 are measures of deprivation for every ward and local authority area in England. They combine a number of indicators which cover a range of domains (Income, Employment, Health Deprivation and Disability, Education, Skills and Training, Housing and Geographical Access to Services) into a single deprivation score for each area.

  The Deprived Urban Post Office Fund is only available to sub-post offices located in the 20 per cent. most deprived urban wards, with priority given to those located in the 10 per cent. most deprived urban wards.

  Sefton Council (Neighbourhood Renewal)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much funding Sefton council has received from the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund; when funds were received; what projects have been funded and by how much; and which organisations are responsible for(a) managing and (b) delivering each project. [89485]

  Mrs. Roche
  Sefton council has received Neighbourhood Renewal Funding of £2,815,650 (2001–02), £4,223,475 (2002–03), with a further £5,631,300 to be made available during 2003–04.

  The projects in the following tables have been funded during the first two financial years. The commissioning process for year three has commenced, with no funding decisions reached as yet, although some initial approvals may be made on 13 January 2003.
  669W

  2001–02

  Project

  Funding (£)

  Managed and delivered by

  Raising Attainment

  277,732

  Sefton MBC

  Mentoring and behavioural support

  74,993

  Sefton MBC

  Alternative Curriculum

  92,497

  Sefton MBC

  Pilot Area Learning Support

  82,489

  Sefton MBC

  Crime Reduction

  48,260

  Merseyside Police

  Communities against Drugs

  50,600

  Merseyside Police

  Multi Agency Refurbishment of Premises

  20,000

  Merseyside Drugs Council

  Neighbourhood wardens

  244,583

  Sefton MBC

  South Sefton Healthy Neighbourhood Programme

  377,744

  South Sefton PCT

  Central Southport Healthy Neighbourhood

  36,254

  Southport and Formby PCT

  Healthy Workforce Development

  50,000

  Sefton MBC

  Alexandra Mount Parenting Centre

  50,000

  Sure Start Partnership and Parenting 2000

  Demolition of Princess Royal

  35,804

  Sefton MBC

  Move On Accommodation

  80,000

  Sefton MBC

  Park Lane Regeneration

  243,000

  Sefton MBC

  Greencroft Regeneration

  301,000

  Sefton MBC

  Feasibility Study for Environmental Improvements

  7,315

  Sefton MBC

  Environmental Improvements Fund

  182,422

  Sefton MBC

  Environmental Hit Squad

  107,847

  Sefton MBC

  Enhancing Citizens Panel in Bootle and Litherland

  11,074

  Sefton MBC

  Community Development Initiative

  1,707

  Sefton MBC

  Learning, Skills and Knowledge

  20,000

  Sefton MBC

  Neighbourhood Renewal Enabling Budget

  203,275

  Sefton MBC

  Total

  2,598,596

  Note:

  £217,054 funding carried over to 2002–03

  2002–03

  Project

  Funding (£)

  Managed and delivered by

  Schools for the community

  350,000

  Sefton MBC

  Raising Pupil Attainment

  149,509

  Sefton MBC

  Mentoring and Behavioural Support

  75,000

  Sefton MBC

  Alternative Curriculum

  92,500

  Sefton MBC

  Pilot Area Learning Support

  82,500

  Sefton MBC

  Neighbourhood Wardens

  100,000

  Sefton MBC

  Alchemy

  33,578

  Alchemy

  Crime Reduction

  50,553

  Merseyside Police

  Youth Inclusion Programme

  35,000

  Youth Offending Team

  Kids off the Streets

  243,000

  Sefton MBC

  Communities against Drugs

  100,000

  Merseyside Police

  SWACA—Centre of Excellence

  50,000

  Sefton Women and Childrens Aid

  South Sefton Healthy Neighbourhoods

  361,850

  South Sefton PCT

  Southport Healthy Neighbourhoods

  60,000

  Southport and Formby PCT

  Surestart Development Workers

  76,374

  Surestart Partnership

  Netherton Feelgood Factory

  200,000

  Netherton Feelgood

  May Logan Centre

  100,000

  May Logan Centre

  Brighter Living Initiative

  50,000

  Brighter Living Initiative

  Play Area Improvements

  166,500

  Childrens Fund/Sefton MBC

  Environmental Hit Squad

  343,645

  Sefton MBC

  Community Kerbside Recycling

  398,598

  Sefton MBC/Community Enterprise

  South Sefton Recycling Centre

  50,000

  Sefton MBC

  Community Environmental Manager

  33,000

  Sefton MBC

  Move on Accommodation

  80,000

  Sefton MBC

  Greencroft Regeneration

  300,000

  Sefton MBC

  Park Lane Regeneration

  240,000

  Sefton MBC

  Neighbourhood Area Panels

  17,000

  Sefton MBC

  Management Information Project

  44,000

  Sefton MBC

  Community Development Worker

  16,338

  Sefton MBC

  Community Development Worker—North Sefton

  30,000

  Sefton Council for Voluntary Services

  Neighbourhood Renewal Action Fund

  120,000

  Sefton MBC/Sefton Community Foundation

  I Kiosks

  63,000

  Sefton MBC

  Neighbourhood Renewal Facilitation Budget

  240,026

  Sefton MBC

  Learning, Skills and Knowledge

  36,212

  Sefton MBC

  One Stop Shops

  50,000

  Sefton MBC

  Total

  4,438,182

  670W

HEALTH

  Amnesic Shellfish Poisoning
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether there is scientific evidence to suggest that the presence of amnesic shellfish poisoning toxins in scallops represent a threat to human health; what scientific investigations have been carried out by the Government in relation to the impact of ASP on human health; and what scientific evidence was used to determine this level. [89453]

  Ms Blears
  The most recent significant outbreak of amnesic shellfish poisoning affecting humans was recorded in Canada in 1987. Approximately 150 people became ill; there were 19 people hospitalised and four deaths. Following the outbreak, the Canadian authorities imposed an action limit in mussels of 20mg/kg domoic acid per gram of tissue, above which harvesting was suspended. This was based on observations of those who became ill, including estimates of levels of toxins actually ingested.

  The European Union adopted this action limit for mussels and other bivalve molluscs including scallops in 1997 (Directive 97/61/EC). The Food Standards Agency has recently written to the European Commission asking them to consider the case for a scientific review of the current internationally accepted action level of 20 mg/kg in scallops, and how such a review may be taken forward.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the level of amnesic shellfish poisoning may vary from scallop to scallop; and on what basis the whole Irish Sea scallop fishery is closed when one particular scallop is detected with levels of AMP above that of the safety level. [89454]

  Ms Blears
  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that the level of domoic acid, which causes amnesic shellfish poisoning, may vary from scallop to scallop. Closures of scallop fisheries are not based on the analysis performed on one scallop, but an homogenate sample of a number of scallops.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what scientific evidence the decision was taken to impose the safety level of 20mg/kg of amnesic shellfish poisoning in scallops caught in UK waters; on which dates the Irish Sea scallop fishery was closed and reopened in each of the last five years; and what estimate she has made of the length of time that the Irish Sea scallop fishery would have been closed in each of the last five years had there been a safety limit of 4.6mg/kg for amnesic shellfish poisoning in place. [89455]

  Ms Blears
  Following an outbreak of amnesic shellfish poisoning in mussels in Canada in 1987, where approximately 150 people became ill, resulting in four deaths, the Canadian authorities imposed an action limit in mussels of 20mg/kg domoic acid per gram of tissue, above which harvesting was suspended.

  The EU adopted this action limit for mussels and other bivalve molluscs including scallops in 1997 (Directive 97/61/EC). This was implemented in Northern Ireland by the Food Safety (Fishery Products and Live Shellfish) (Hygiene) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern
  672W
  Ireland) 1999. The Irish Sea scallop fishery was closed from September 1999 to February 2000, and part closed from November to December 2002. The new level of 4.6 mg/kg forms part of a Commission Decision which member states have the option to implement. No final decisions have been made as to whether the United Kingdom will adopt this Decision. Full regulatory impact assessments will be prepared before any such decision is taken.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is with regard to the introduction of a 4.6mg/kg safety limit for amnesic shellfish poisoning toxins; and what estimate he has made of the likely effect upon the UK scallop fishery industry. [89456]

  Ms Blears
  Council Directive 91/492/EEC currently provides for production areas to be closed when amnesic shellfish poisoning toxin levels exceed 20mg/kg in whole scallops (or any part edible separately). The new level of 4.6 mg/kg forms part of a Commission Decision which member states have the option to implement. No final decisions have been made as to whether the United Kingdom will adopt this Decision. Full regulatory impact assessments will be prepared before any such decision is taken.

  Social Work Students (Bursary Scheme)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate how many students will take up the Bursary Scheme to take the Diploma in Social Work. [90577]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 14 January 2003]: The number of social work students who will be entitled to the bursary will depend on the number accepted onto courses by the universities and whether or not the student is in employment and supported through training by their employer. At the end of 2002 there had been 5,070 applications to the Social Work Admissions Service for social work courses beginning in September 2003.

  Elderly Care
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures have been introduced since 1997 to help ensure that elderly people not capable of self-care can maintain the highest possible quality of life. [88875]

  Jacqui Smith
  Older people are the major users of health and social care. They have benefited, and will continue to, from the increased levels of funding of the national health service and social care services. Within this overall context and within the framework initially set out in the White Papers, "The New NHS: Modern; Dependable" (December 1997), and "Modernising Social Services" (November 1998), a range of measures have been introduced to ensure that older people's quality of life is maximised. They include:

  The NHS Plan;

  Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation;

  NHS Direct;

  establishment of the Royal Commission on long-term care and response to its recommendation, including free nursing care;

  national service framework for older people, including the development of intermediate care facilities;

  availability of direct payments for older people;

  673W

  increased funding for carers;

  Commission for Health Improvement;

  Essence of Care toolkit, aimed at assisting nurses and others to maintain and improve the quality of care; and

  establishment of the National Care Standards Commission, an independent body to regulate social and health care services, including domiciliary care agencies.

  'No Secrets' Guidance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to review the implementation of the 'No Secrets' guidance. [89816]

  Jacqui Smith
  Under the 'No Secrets' guidance, local multi-agency codes of practice were to be implemented by 31 October 2001. The Department has since commissioned the centre for policy on ageing to analyse these codes. The analysis, entitled "No Secrets: Findings from the analysis of local codes of practice", is available in the Library and through the Department of Health website at www.doh.qov.uk/scg/nosecrets.htm.

  Additionally, the Department is funding the practitioner alliance against abuse of vulnerable adults to examine progress at local level on implementing key aspects of practice identified in "No Secrets".

  Abattoirs
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial assessment he has made of the impact of European Commission Regulation COM (2002) 377 on abattoirs in the UK; what discussions he has had and what representations he has received on European Commission Regulation COM (2002) 377; what steps he is taking to assist abattoirs in meeting the requirements of the Regulation; and if he will make a statement. [89686]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]: The Food Standards Agency has published an initial regulatory impact assessment on its website as part of its stakeholder consultation on the Commission's proposed Regulation COM (2002) 377. That Regulation will provide rules for official controls on abattoirs. The Agency estimates the costs to the meat sector would be approximately neutral, although some abattoirs would benefit from reduced levels of veterinary supervision. How costs fall between industry and government will be dependent on a proposal for a further Regulation on official feed and food controls expected to be published shortly.

  The Agency's consultations on the Commission's official controls proposals have elicited a number of responses, many expressing concern should the proposals result in new unjustified burdens and costs on the abattoir sector. In addition the previous Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Public Health (Yvette Cooper) received representations and had discussions with UNISON over the union's concerns that the proposal contained provisions allowing plant staff to carry out tasks currently undertaken by its members. I have received similar representations.

  Cancelled Operations
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the number of operations cancelled at the last minute and (b) the number of patients not readmitted within 28 days of their operation being cancelled in each of the last four quarters in (i) England and (ii) each NHS region. [89650]

  Mr. Hutton
  Quarterly data are collected on the number of operations cancelled by the hospital for non-clinical reasons (i) at the last minute (ie on the day patients are due to arrive or after arrival in hospital or on the day of their operation) and (ii) on the day of surgery.

  The NHS Plan cancelled operations guarantee has been in place since 1 April 2002 and since then, data have been collected on the number of patients not admitted within 28 days of cancellation on the day of surgery.

  Data have been aggregated to strategic health authority level since 1 April 2002. Trust level data have been collected since Quarter 1 2001–02. Prior to this, data were collected at health authority level.

  Data are available in the Library and on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity/data requests.htm.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations were cancelled for NHS patients in each of the last six years. [89929]

  Mr. Hutton
  Quarterly data are collected on the number of operations cancelled by the hospital for non-clinical reasons (i) at the last minute (i.e. on the day patients are due to arrive or after arrival in hospital or on the day of their operation) and (ii) on the day of surgery. These data are available in the Library and on the Department's website at www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity/data—requests.htm.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations have been cancelled by the NHS in each of the past eight quarters; and what percentage of these cancellations have not been rebooked(a) within a month and (b) for a date within two months, broken down by (i) Strategic Health Authority Area and (ii) NHS trust. [90433]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]: Quarterly data are collected on the number of operations cancelled by the hospital for non- clinical reasons (i) at the last minute (i.e. on the day patients are due to arrive or after arrival in hospital or on the day of their operation) and (ii) on the day of surgery. Data are also collected on the number of patients not admitted within 28 days of cancellation on the day of surgery.

  Data have been aggregated at strategic health authority (StHA) level since Quarter 1 of 2002–03. Prior to that, data was aggregated at regional level. Trust level data has been collected since Quarter 1 of 2001–02. Prior to this data were collected at health authority level. All the data can be accessed in the Library and on the Department's website at: www.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity/datarequests.htm.
  675W
  Since 1 April 2002, the NHS Plan cancelled operations guarantee has been in place. National Health Service trusts are performance managed on their performance against the NHS Plan guarantee by StHAs. Patients re-booked within 28 days are not separately identified in the data and may have had their operation cancelled in the previous quarter. Therefore, it is not statistically valid to calculate the percentage of patients who have been re-booked as a proportion of those cancelled.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average fee paid per week by each local social services department to private care homes for clients in(a) nursing and (b) residential care was in 2002, broken down by local authority in England; and what the average costs were for self-funders. [89695]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 14 January 2003]: Information regarding the average fee paid per week by each social services department and the average fee paid by self-funders is not kept centrally. The setting of fee levels by local councils is a matter for local decision. Councils must take into account a range of factors and market conditions when negotiating fee levels. Fee levels for self-funders is a matter negotiated between the home and the individual requiring care or their representative.

  Children in Custody
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has given to(a) the Care Standards Commission and (b) Social Services Department since 29 November on the application of the Children Act 1989 to children held in prison custody. [88234]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Howard League for Penal Reform took the Home Office to judicial review over a statement in Prison Service guidance that the Children Act 1989 did not apply to children under the age of eighteen in prison establishments. Mr. Justice Munby's judgment, handed down on 29 November, ruled that the Children Act 1989 applied to children in prison, subject to the requirements of imprisonment. The judgment upheld the Prison Service's policy in relation to juveniles in custody. One sentence in its policy, which was to be changed regardless of the outcome of the judgment, has been found to be wrong. This will now be changed by the Home Office in the context of the judgment.

  The Department therefore sees no immediate need to revise existing guidance to councils with social services responsibilities, or to the National Care Standards Commission (NCSC). In the latter case, this is because the NCSC is responsible for children's services, regulated under the Care Standards Act 2000, which does not include prison establishments. However, we will, together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, carefully study Mr. Justice Munby's judgment, in the context of the recommendations of the Joint Chief Inspectors' report, "Safeguarding Children".

  Consultants
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many medical consultants undertake work in the private sector, broken down by nation and region. [90759]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 14 January 2003]: We do not collect information centrally about the proportion of consultants working in the private sector in England and Northern Ireland. Information about the consultant workforce in Scotland or Wales is a matter for the Scottish Executive or the National Assembly for Wales.

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department proposes to take to increase NHS Dental Service provision in the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale area; and if he will make a statement. [89594]

  Jacqui Smith
  Patients in Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale can, where necessary, gain access to national health service dental services by calling NHS Direct.

  The working group, 'Options for Change', has proposed new methods of service delivery and would allow the NHS locally to place a greater emphasis upon preventive care and reducing oral health inequalities.

  Mr. Peter Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what NHS dentistry services are available to new adult patients in the Gosport area. [89858]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 14 January 2003]: Hampshire and Isle of Wight Strategic Health Authority has confirmed that currently no national health service dentists within Gosport are accepting new adult patients. Emergency dentistry for new adult patients, is available from the dental access centre in Fareham. Dental practices in Gosport will also provide emergency treatment to such patients.

  New patients wishing to access NHS dentistry in the surrounding area can obtain information on practices accepting adult patients from Fareham and Gosport Primary Care Trust or NHS Direct. The strategic health authority has advised me that registrations are being accepted in Southsea, Portsmouth and Cosham.

  Drugs (Black Market)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what investigations have been undertaken by his Department into reports of Aids drugs provided at cost to African countries being resold in the UK; what assessment he has made of the level of drugs provided at cost by pharmaceutical companies in Africa being resold illegally in the UK or Europe; and what drugs are involved. [89937]

  Ms Blears
  The enforcement group of the Medicines Control Agency is currently investigating one suspected case of diversion in the United Kingdom.

  There is no current assessment of the quantity of drugs potentially diverted.
  677W
  Drugs identified to date involved in diversion in Europe are Epivir and Combivir.

  Food Safety
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the use of disclaimers by restaurants when selling undercooked meat products. [88988]

  Ms Blears
  Any person who sells food for human consumption in a restaurant, or indeed elsewhere, which fails to comply with food safety requirements is guilty of an offence.

  The food safety requirements, as set out in Section 8 of the Food Safety Act 1990, contain three alternative limbs.

  The first states that the food must not have been rendered injurious to health by means of certain operations, e.g. adding articles or substances to the food or subjecting it to processes or treatments.

  The second is that the food must not be unfit for human consumption.

  The third is that the food must not be so contaminated that it would not be reasonable to expect it to he used for human consumption in that state.

  If food is sold which breaches any of the three limbs then, regardless of a disclaimer, an offence is committed.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what statistical baseline from laboratory reports in 2000 the Food Standards Agency has based its target for reduction of food-borne illness; and what the most recent performance statistics are in relation to this target. [88715]

  Ms Blears
  The Food Standards Agency's target for reducing food-borne illness by 20 per cent. by 2006 is based on laboratory reports of the five major food-borne pathogens (Salmonella, Campylobacter, E. coli 0157, Listeria and Clostridium perfringens), excluding cases reported as having been acquired abroad. These data are collected by the Public Health Laboratory Service communicable disease surveillance centres in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and by the Scottish Centre for infection and environmental health for Scotland.

  When the baseline was announced in August 20011, there were 65,209 confirmed laboratory reports in the year 2000. However, it should be noted that the majority of people with food-borne disease do not consult a doctor or have a specimen sent for laboratory testing, and therefore the number of cases of food poisoning will be significantly higher.

  Updates on progress against the target will be reported annually to the Board and can be downloaded from the Agency's website.

  The figures for 2001 (the year in which the Agency's strategy for reducing food-borne disease was being finalised) were reported to the Board in May 2002, and showed a small increase (1 per cent.) in the number of cases.
  1www.food.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/poisoningreduction

  Foundation Hospitals
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether an individual will be able to serve again on a board of governors of an NHS foundation hospital after a period of time has elapsed between the completion of the maximum of nine years' service and the recommencement of a further term. [87804]

  Mr. Hutton
  The position is as set out in paragraph 2.28 of "A Guide to NHS Foundation Trusts". Details will be set out in forthcoming legislation.

  Fruit and Vegetable Consumption
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding his Department makes available to increase consumption of fruit and vegetables. [84460]

  Ms Blears
  The Department of Health and the New Opportunities Fund have together made £55.3 million available for initiatives to increase fruit and vegetable consumption since the 2000–01 financial year.

  In addition to the above, initiatives to increase fruit and vegetable consumption have been funded through health action zones, sure start, healthy living centres and through general funding allocations to health authorities and primary care trusts.

  General Agreement on Trade in Services
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether provisions under the proposed GATS will affect decisions over the provider of publicly financed health services; and if he will make a statement. [90041]

  Mr. Hutton
  General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) cannot prevent Governments from regulating to meet national policy objectives. These rights are enshrined in GATS itself and repeated in negotiating guidelines for current negotiations. The Government has made clear to the House in the past that we have no intention of making GATS commitments that could call into question our ability to continue providing public services such as health or education.

  Heroin
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how his Department defines treatment for heroin misusers. [90557]

  Ms Blears
  The recently published models of care document, which has the status of a national service framework for substance misuse, defines treatment for heroin users as follows:

  Drug treatment needs to be comprehensive and multifaceted. Local specialist substance misuse treatment systems need to include a range of interventions, including advice and information, harm reduction, structured programmes of psychological therapies in conjunction with substitute prescribing where appropriate and residential provision. There should be a range of interventions and a range of treatment philosophies.

  HIV
  Mr. Portillo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice his Department(a) issues and (b) endorses

  679W
  on the likelihood of HIV being transmitted through oral sex; and if he will estimate the proportion of HIV cases contracted in the last 12 months that can be attributed to oral sex. [90930]

  Ms Blears
  A statement of risk on 'Oral sex and transmission of HIV', together with a question and answer briefing, was issued by the Department of Health in June 2001. This was distributed widely to health professionals and the voluntary sector and is available from the Department's website http://www.doh.gov.uk/eaga/hivoralsex.pdf).

  For the general population, advice on the transmission of HIV via oral sex is available through a number of sources funded by the Department. These include sexual health leaflets, the Sexual Health and National AIDS Helpline and the website which supports the Department's new safer sex campaign. In addition, Terrence Higgins Trust are funded by the Department to produce health promotion materials for gay men. These include leaflets (specifically 'The Manual' and 'Man[sex]Man') with messages around oral sex. The advice is consistent with the statement of risk issued in 2001.

  Oral sex is common in both homosexual and heterosexual relationships, but its frequency among men who have sex with men has highlighted its potential contribution to HIV transmission. Recent information collected by the Public Health Laboratory Service found that, in 2 per cent. of new HIV cases in men reported as infected through sex between men, they believed themselves to have been infected through oral sex. On following up these reports, more probable routes of infection than oral sex were found in some men. Hence the true proportion of new HIV cases that can be attributed to oral sex will be less than 2 per cent.

  Homeless People
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received on the difficulties of homeless people in accessing health services, particularly during winter; and if he will make a statement. [81679]

  Ms Blears
  I have received no recent representations on this subject. However, the Government fully recognises the difficulties which people who are homeless face in accessing health services. The first point of contact with the national health service should usually be primary care and the Department has taken a range of actions to improve the accessibility of primary care services for homeless people and later this month will be reminding general practitioners that people do not need to have a permanent address to register with them.

  HPA
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff the HPA Steering Group has who are dedicated exclusively to setting up the new organisation. [90062]

  Ms Blears
  The implementation team co-ordinating the arrangements for the establishment of the Health Protection Agency has eight full-time staff. They are 680W
  joined on particular issues by a number of part-time team members and others drawn from the current organisations and the Department of Health.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements have been made for liaison between the National Radiological Protection Board and the HPA whilst the latter remains constituted as a Special Health Authority. [90089]

  Ms Blears
  I wrote to the chairs of the bodies most affected by our proposals for creating a Health Protection Agency on 15 November 2002, setting out the decisions we had taken following consultation on the Agency. Copies of the letters are available in the Library. In doing so, I made clear that it is important that the Health Protection Agency and the National Radiological Protect Board should work closely and effectively together from April 2003 to help achieve improvements in services to users. In the first instance, and subject to the legislation establishing the Agency being put in place, it will be for the Agency and the Board to decide how to achieve this. We shall hold them to account for doing so.

  IVF Treatment
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent meetings he has had with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to discuss revisions to their Code of Practice on IVF treatment. [90615]

  Ms Blears
  Departmental officials discuss revisions to the code of practice at regular meetings with the executive of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). The most recent meetings were on 10 December 2002 and 9 January 2003. Ministers also meet regularly with the chair of the HFEA to discuss issues including the code of practice; the last meeting was on 30 October 2002. The HFEA members intend to consider the latest revision at their meeting on 16 January, when departmental officials will be present as observers. It is anticipated that a revised code of practice will be issued in February.

  Lifestyle Survey
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the most recent annual national survey of lifestyle conducted by his Department; [84467]

  (2) what the cost to his Department was in 2001–02 of conducting a national survey of lifestyle; and what benefits have resulted therefrom. [84461]

  Ms Blears
  The Department commissions a number of annual surveys that include questions on lifestyle issues, such as the Health Survey for England.

  The annual cost of the Health Survey for England is around £2.8 million. The cost of the other survey activity is around £0.7 million.

  The Health Survey for England is a major vehicle for providing valuable annual data about the nation's health and the information is used to underpin strategies for promoting better health. It is unique in providing objective measures of health such as measurements of height, weight, blood pressure and analysis of blood

  681W
  samples, together with information from questionnaires. It also contains a wealth of socio-demographic data, which is valuable for monitoring inequalities in health. It has established itself as an important research tool.

  Secondary analysis of health survey information on many topics has been published in national and international journals.

  Copies of all the surveys commissioned by the Department are routinely placed in the Library. The next report of the Health Survey for England is due to be published on 20 January.

  Mental Health Services
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what patient advocacy services are available to(a) disabled and (b) ethnic minority mental health patients. [86147]

  Jacqui Smith
  A number of nationally and locally based advocacy services are available to help disabled and ethnic minority mental health patients. A range of agencies, including the voluntary sector provides these services. The Department is also providing three year funding for the United Kingdom Advocacy Network (UKAN) to develop standards in independent advocacy whereby they are establishing programmes of regional training courses for advocates. UKAN also employs a worker to work specifically on advocacy issues affecting black and minority ethnic groups.

  The majority of national health service trusts and primary care trusts now have a patient advice and liaison service to advise patients, their carers and families about how to access appropriate advocacy services.

  Microbiology Laboratories
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many state-run microbiology laboratories have not applied for clinical pathology accreditation. [90136]

  Ms Blears
  We do not collect this information centrally.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the public health implications arising from the placing by mobile phone companies of masts in(a) chimney stacks, (b) drainpipes, (c) alarm boxes and (d) other adjuncts to domestic properties; if he will take steps to ensure the location of such masts is maintained on a register open to the public; and if he will make a statement. [90343]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]: The public health implications of mobile phone base stations were assessed by the independent expert group on mobile phones (IEGMP). Their report, the Stewart Report, concluded that the balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to the health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of guidelines.
  682W
  Measurements undertaken by the National Radiological Protection Board and the Radiocommunications Agency (RA) have confirmed that public exposures are very much lower than the international guidelines. These results are available to the public from these organisations' websites, at www.nrpb.org and www.radio.gov.uk. Network operators have undertaken to ensure that all base stations will be designed and sited so that members of the public will not be exposed in excess of the recommended basic restriction.

  The IEGMP noted that if people are unduly concerned about potential exposures then that in itself may affect their well-being. A number of recommendations of the group were, therefore, designed to provide more information to people about local base stations. One of these measures was to develop the 'Sitefindeemobile phone base station database, which is a national database of mobile phone base stations and their emissions. The database is managed by the RA, an executive agency of the Department of Trade and Industry, on behalf of the Government. The database provides information on all operational, externally sited, cellular radio transmitters in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and is updated every three months.

  National Radiological Protection Board
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health where the National Radiological Protection Board will have its headquarters after 1 April. [90090]

  Ms Blears
  There are no plans to move the headquarters of the National Radiological Protection Board after 1 April.

  Overseas Treatments
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS patients have been treated in continental European hospitals since the ruling by the European court; which continental European hospitals have been used by NHS patients and what operations have been carried out; and if he will list the origin of NHS patients who have received treatment in continental European hospitals by PCT area. [89930]

  Mr. Hutton
  Since the ruling of the European Court of Justice in July 2001, a total of 234 national health service patients have received treatment abroad as part of the overseas treatment programme. All of these referrals have been to hospitals in continental Europe.

  Patients have received treatment in two hospitals in France and eight hospitals in Germany. The French hospitals are Polyclinique de la Louviere, Lille and Institute Calo-Hadin, Berck Sur Mer. The German hospitals are Lutherhaus, Essen; Eduardus Krankenhaus, Cologne; Henriettenstiftung, Hanover; Das Klinikum, Osnabruck; Gilead, Bielefeld; Endo Klinik, Hamburg; Ostseeklinik, Damp; and a clinic in Celle.

  Of the 234 patients who have received treatment abroad, 197 were orthopaedic patients and 37 were ophthalmology patients.
  683W
  Details of the origin of the patients are held by health authority area. Portsmouth, Isle of Wight and South East Hampshire health authority has referred 50 patients abroad. West Sussex and East Surrey health authorities have referred 50 patients abroad. East Kent health authority has referred 126 patients abroad. Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire health authority has referred eight patients abroad.

  Pneumococcal Disease (PHLS Programme)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many service level agreements he estimates will be required to maintain the programme co-ordinated by the PHLS on pneumococcal disease. [90048]

  Ms Blears
  There will be no service level agreements to maintain the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) co-ordinated programmes on pneumococcal disease. All work for the Department of Health by PHLS on pneumococcal disease are part of the core funding provided by the Department.

  Private Sector Services
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the present annual cost is to the NHS of recurrent services provided by the private sector; what his estimate is of the likely cost over the next three years; and what proportion of total NHS spending this represents. [90040]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data are not held centrally on all service contracts held by national health service bodies with private sector organisations and could be collected only at disproportionate cost. Information is available centrally on private finance initiative (PFI) schemes and spending on healthcare provided by non-NHS bodies.

  Data on the revenue consequences of NHS PFI schemes, for example estimated payments to the private sector under signed PFI contracts, is provided each year to the Health Select Committee of the House and to the Office of Government Commerce for their biannual returns to Parliament on PFI transactions contained in the budget report. Outturn figures for the last closed financial year (2001–02) and estimated payments for the following three years are in the table:

  Payments (£000)

  As a proportion of total NHS revenue expenditure1(%)

  2001–02

  221,334

  0.5

  2002–03

  314,613

  0.6

  2003–04

  405,303

  0.7

  2004–05

  419,465

  0.7

  12001–02 as measured on Stage 1 Resource Budgeting basis.

  2002–03 onwards on Stage 2 Resource Budgeting basis.

  In 2001–02 (the latest year for which information is available), NHS trusts, primary care trusts and health authorities in England spent approximately £1.8 billion on the purchase of health care from non-NHS bodies. This figure includes expenditure on services provided by all non-NHS bodies, including local authorities and other statutory bodies, as well as private healthcare providers, and cannot be broken down by type of
  684W
  provider. This represents around 3.8 per cent. of total NHS revenue expenditure. We have not estimated the level of equivalent spending in future years.

  Residential Homes
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve surveillance of the elderly in residential homes in order to protect them from abuse. [90250]

  Jacqui Smith
  We believe that determining the appropriateness of specific measures for surveillance in care homes is best done locally, on a home by home basis. National Care Standards Commission area offices are best placed to assess the need for such measures in a particular care home within the broad statutory guidelines. In doing so they should take into account such things as the perceived needs of residents; the prevention of abuse; residents' right to privacy; staff training, numbers, and supervisory arrangements. These needs will vary from home to home and from area to area.

  Residential/Nursing Home Beds
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residential and nursing home beds were available in England in 2002, broken down by local authority. [90034]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information for 2002 is not yet centrally available.

  Safer Travel to School
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was disbursed under the safer travel to schools initiative; how many projects benefited; and what evaluation he has made of the initiative. [84021]

  Ms Blears
  Local safe routes to school schemes are being developed as part of local transport plans. The Department for Transport allocated £620 million to local authorities for small-scale schemes such as road safety and measures to encourage walking and cycling, including up to 800 more safe routes to school in the 2002–03 local transport plan settlement.

  According to local transport plan annual progress reports (APRs) submitted to the Department for Transport in August 2002 1,782 safe routes to school schemes were in place in April 2002, with a further 1,543 planned for 2002–03. The APRs also showed that safe routes schemes to 8,006 schools, or about 35 per cent., of schools, are planned by 2006.

  Between 1999 and 2001, this Department also developed and funded the safe and sound challenge scheme, which disbursed around £210,000 to over 80 schools to implement initiatives to promote healthy active modes of travel. We commissioned follow up monitoring and evaluation of some of the schemes, which had been funded in the first two years of the challenge. The results showed that schools had successfully implemented school travel initiatives with the funding that had been awarded. However, it was not possible to establish whether any real changes in school travel patterns had occurred, as most schools did not have baseline data for comparison.

  Smoking
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to discourage smoking in public places. [89056]

  Ms Blears
  The Government have no plans to implement a ban on smoking in public places.

  This year the Department is funding local tobacco control alliances across England to carry out projects in close co-operation with local employers to tackle passive smoking and to increase the number of smoke-free environments. These projects vary in nature from the production of 'smoke free' guides to pubs and restaurants to the provision of advice and support to managers wishing to introduce policies. We hope that many will be suitable for national application.

  We will also be increasing the visibility of health messages highlighting to smokers the risks environmental tobacco smoke presents. This is through regulations to transpose into United Kingdom law the EU Directive on the Manufacture, Presentation and Sale of Tobacco Products. These regulations require tobacco products to carry larger and starker health warnings, on both the front and back of the packet. The dangers of passive smoking are highlighted in two of the new warnings, which include "Smoking Seriously Harms You and Others Around You" and "Protect Children: Don't Make Them Breathe Your Smoke".

  Sterile Service Facilities
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department plans to spend on centralised sterile service facilities for the NHS in England during the(a) 2003–04 and (b) 2004–05 financial years. [90292]

  Mr. Lammy
  The following figures represent money for investment in new and improved services, it does not include the cost of day-to-day running of sterile services departments or money invested by health bodies from their own resources:

  2003–04: £134 million1

  2004–05: £30 million

  1£114 million brought forward from 2002–03.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on his Department's plans for a new network of centralised sterile service facilities for the NHS in England; [90303]

  (2). what discussions his Department has had with suppliers for the proposed network of centralised sterile service facilities for the NHS in England; and which suppliers these were; [90304]

  (3). whether procurement for the new network of centralised sterile service facilities for the NHS in England will be on a single national basis or by sub-region; [90305]

  (4). when his Department will begin procurement for the new network of centralised sterile service facilities for the NHS in England; and if procurement will be open to a full range of suppliers; [90291]

  (5). how many units will comprise the new network of centralised sterile service facilities for the NHS in England. [90293]
  686W
  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 13 January 2003]: We envisage a mixed economy in decontamination services provided to the national health service. Local needs and facilities will determine the way in which the service is provided locally but all will be provided to a nationally agreed set of standards.

  It is not possible to say at this stage how many centres there will be in total, nor how many procurements there will be, or when they will take place, but we expect the first—covering the Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust and The Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust—to be advertised in the Official Journal of the European Communities (OJEC) before the end of 2002–03. All procurements will be carried out in accordance with the rules of the European Union.

  The Department is actively seeking to develop the market in sterile services and is encouraging new entrants as well as existing suppliers to participate in procurements. To that end, officials have met existing and potential suppliers on over 100 occasions: in specially arranged conferences and workshops, private meetings with individual companies, visits to reference sites and meetings with trade associations. It would be a breach of commercial confidentiality to disclose the names of the companies involved.

  Tuberculosis
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 3 December, Ref 83323, what extra funding has been made available to health authorities with levels of tuberculosis higher than the national average. [86805]

  Ms Blears
  The level of funding is still under consideration.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Custodial Sentences
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the offences for which his Department's guidelines recommend a custodial sentence. [90423]

  Yvette Cooper
  My Department does not issue guidelines on sentencing. Determination of the correct sentence in any given case is a matter for judicial discretion, taking into account any guidance issued by the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) and relevant legislation.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Confederation of European Councillors Year Book Launch
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his policy is on Ministers from his Department attending events in conjunction with Ministers from the Republic; and how this policy was applied with reference to the invitation to join
  687W
  Pat Gallagher TD at the launch of the Confederation of European Councillors' Year Book at Newry on 7 January. [90105]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Where diary commitments permit, I, and my ministerial team, seek to accept as many invitations to events as we are able to. No Northern Ireland Office Minister attended the event in Newry on 7 January 2003 to launch the Confederation of European Councillors' Year Book and Diary 2003, as there is no record of an invitation to the event having been received by any Northern Ireland Office Minister.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what date his Department received the invitation by the National Association of Councillors (Northern Ireland) for a Minister to attend the launch of the Confederation of European Councillors' Year Book at Newry on 7 January; on what date follow-up telephone requests were logged; and if he will make a statement of his Department's handling of the invitation. [90106]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  There is no record of an invitation by the National Association of Councillors (Northern Ireland) to the launch of the Confederation of European Councillors' Year Book and Diary 2003 on 7 January 2003, having been received by my Department or any Northern Ireland Office Minister. There is no record of any follow-up telephone calls specifically relating to this matter.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reason no Minister, or departmental representative attended the launch of the Confederation of European Councillors' Year Book at Newry on 7 January, co-hosted by the National Association of Councillors (Northern Ireland) and the Local Authority Members Association of the Republic. [90107]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  No Northern Ireland Office Minister or departmental representative attended the launch of the Confederation of European Councillors' Year Book and Diary 2003, as there is no record of an invitation to the event having been received by any Northern Ireland Office Minister or Department.

  Correspondence
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if there is a policy in his Department relating to the receipt and processing of letters from local authorities in relation to(a) their acknowledgement, (b) the normal period for the dispatch of a substantive reply and (c) when it is appropriate to dispatch an interim or holding reply; and if he will make a statement. [90497]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department complies with the Six Service Standards for General Government. To meet the key standard of answering letters quickly and clearly, the Department has set itself a target of responding, in full, within 15 working days of receipt. This is in regard to general correspondence and would include any responses to local authorities. The procedures my Department follow are in accord with the Government guidance which requires that correspondence be acknowledged on receipt or within a688W
  targeted period and if it becomes clear that a full reply cannot be provided within the deadline, then a holding reply will issue.

  Following the guidance from Cabinet Office on the handling of correspondence from Members of Parliament, the Department has set itself a target time of replying to this type of correspondence within 10 working days. As with other correspondence, the Department strives to issue a substantive reply within the target time. When this is not possible, an interim or holding reply issues as a matter of courtesy and to reassure the correspondent that their letter has been received and that action is being taken.

  Diabetes
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in Northern Ireland suffer from type I and type II diabetes mellitus; and what estimate he has made of the prevalence of this condition in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. [82216]

  Mr. Browne
  The 1997 and 2001 Northern Ireland Health and Social Wellbeing Surveys indicated that 3 per cent. of the population aged 16 and over (approximately 39,000 adults) had been told by a doctor that they had diabetes. About three-quarters of these are estimated to be Type II diabetics who developed the condition in adulthood.

  Ethical Banking
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what contracts have been concluded as a result of the Government's commitment to support ethical banking. [89947]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Government believe it is important for consumers to have choice in financial products, including the availability of 'ethical' products. However, it would not be appropriate for the Government to exclusively support the development of one specific group of financial service providers. It is for individual consumers to decide the attributes they most value from their financial services and for financial services firms to be transparent about their use of funds and investments.

  EU Fishing Grants
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the total amount of European Union grants to the fishing ports of(a) Kilkeel, (b) Portavogie and (c) Ardglass was in each financial year since 1997. [85690]

  Mr. Pearson
  The information requested is not held in the format requested and could not be provided without disproportionate cost.

  Total grants paid to each of these locations under the European Union Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFO) over the period were as follows.
  689W

  £

  Kilkeel

  Portavogie

  Ardglass

  1997–98

  0

  22,447

  33,789

  1998–99

  115,285

  21,732

  8,411

  1999–2000

  316,975

  322,469

  0

  2000–01

  163,665

  198,317

  5,837

  2001–02

  25,390

  280,904

  0

  Total

  621,315

  845,869

  48,037

  Other examples of European Funding to these areas include:
  £3,043 was paid to Ards Borough Council in November 2002 for the refurbishment of self-catering chalets in Portavogie. The funding was made available from Priority 1 'Economic Growth and Competitiveness'. Measure 4 'Local Economic Development' of the Building Sustainable Prosperity Programme.
  £14,781 was paid to Newry and Kilkeel Institute of Further and Higher Education in April 2001 to bring together people from Portadown, Newry, Dundalk and Kilkeel, giving them the opportunity to explore each others culture through a series of leadership activities and workshops. Of this total £3,695 was targeted at Kilkeel. The funding was made available from Sub-Programme 3 'Cross-Border Development', Measure 1 'Business and Cultural Linkages' of the Peace I Programme.
  Over the period 1994–2002, some £10.3 million was invested in processing and marketing projects, most of them located in the three fishing ports, of which 35 per cent. was EU Structural Funds (from FIFO), 5 per cent. national funding, and the remainder private investment.

  Former Military Sites
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate the costs of setting up the structures proposed in relation to former military sites in the Strategic Investment and Regeneration of Sites Order. [86625]

  Mr. Pearson
  No decisions have been made about the sites or how they will be developed. As stated in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Draft Strategic Investment and Regeneration of Sites Order, operating costs in relation to development corporations or regeneration companies could be in the range of £1 million to £2 million each. Such a cost may only be relevant for the larger sites.

  House Seller's Pack
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce a requirement for the vendor of a house to provide a seller's pack to prospective buyers in Northern Ireland. [83115]

  Mr. Browne
  The proposal to impose a condition on house vendors to produce a sellers information pack for prospective purchasers is aimed at making the home buying process in England and Wales more transparent and certain. Officials at the Department for Social Development continue to monitor developments with a view to determining whether there may be merit, at some time in the future, in introducing similar measures in Northern Ireland.

  Human Organs Inquiry
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the report of the Human 690W
  Organs Inquiry has been referred to (a) the Police Service of Northern Ireland and (b) the Director of Public Prosecutions. [83560]

  Mr. Browne
  The report of the Human Organs Inquiry has not been referred to the Police Service of Northern Ireland or to the Director of Public Prosecutions. While the Report criticises past practices it does not indicate that any member of staff within the Health Service acted outside the law.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he plans to take with reference to members of medical and managerial staff in the three hospitals named in the report of the Human Organs Inquiry. [83561]

  Mr. Browne
  There are no plans to take action with reference to any member of the medical or managerial staff employed at Altnagelvin, Craigavon area hospital or the Royal group of hospitals. Action is being taken to implement all the recommendations of the report by he Human Organs Inquiry. This will include new legislation with criminal penalties for the breach of its provisions.

  Industrial/Provident Societies
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many industrial and provident societies have addresses registered in Northern Ireland. [86627]

  Mr. Pearson
  There are 167 industrial and provident societies with a registered office address in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received about reform of industrial and provident society law in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [86628]

  Mr. Pearson
  No representations have been received. I have however announced on 29 November 2002 details of a major review of Industrial and Provident Society law in Northern Ireland. The review process has already commenced with the first phase scheduled for completion in October 2003.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many industrial and provident societies in Northern Ireland have a turnover in excess of £1 million. [86629]

  Mr. Pearson
  The statutory annual returns held on file in Companies Registry indicate that 33 societies have a turnover or income in excess of £1 million.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many representations he has received about reform of industrial and provident society law; and if he will make a statement. [86630]

  Mr. Pearson
  No representations have been made. However, as stated in my answer to (86628), I have recently announced a major review of industrial and provident society law in Northern Ireland. The review has already commenced with the first phase scheduled for completion in October 2003.

  Londonderry
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Heart of the City study relating to Londonderry will be published for public consultation. [87334]

  Mr. Browne
  In March last year, the Department of Social Development announced that it had appointed consultants W S Atkins to undertake an urban design study for the centre of Londonderry. The study intends to develop a strategic framework to inform the future development of key city centre sites such as Ebrington Barracks, Fort George and Queen's Quay.

  "Heart of the City" aims to enhance the quality of urban design and architecture in the central core of Londonderry.

  In October 2002 W S Atkins undertook some public consultation on their draft proposals, including a presentation to Derry City Council and three workshops. This resulted in extensive local media coverage on the Heart of the City study.

  W S Atkins are currently compiling their final report, which will include revised sections on the economic viability of the key proposals in the study. It is expected that the final report will now be presented to the Department in January 2003.

  The Department for Social Development proposes to publish the report for wider public consultation in February 2003.

  Northern Ireland Railways
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which Minister was responsible for the placing of an order for 23 new train sets for Northern Ireland Railways; who signed the contract; and on what date it was signed. [90763]

  Angela Smith
  The Minister responsible for transport matters at the time the order for 23 new trains was placed was Mr. Peter Robinson MP, the Minister for Regional Development in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The contract was signed on 28 February 2002 by Dr. Joan Smith and Mr. Ted Hesketh, on behalf of Northern Ireland Railways and by Sr Luis Capuchino, on behalf of Construcciones y Auxliar de Ferrocarrilles SA, the Spanish company that will supply the trains.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the total value is of funding available to support(a) urban and (b) rural post offices in Northern Ireland. [83247]

  Mr. Browne
  There is no specific funding allocated to Northern Ireland in respect of either urban or rural post offices.

  Social Security Appeals Service
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases are waiting to be listed for social security appeals tribunals; how long these cases have waited; how many of these cases are for 692W
  (a) disability living allowance and (b) incapacity benefit; what centres these hearings will be listed for; and if he will make a statement. [82762]

  Mr. Browne
  The total number of social security cases waiting to be listed for hearing by an appeal tribunal was 5,368 at I October 2002. This included 3,111 appeals relating to disability living allowance and 1,644 relating to incapacity benefit. The current average waiting time to list an appeal for a first hearing is 19 weeks for disability appeals, nine weeks for social security appeals and 13 weeks for medical appeals. The number of cases to be held in each centre is set out in the following table.

  The hearings for the cases waiting to be listed are likely to be held at the following locations:

  Tribunal centre

  Number of cases to be heard

  Armagh

  60

  Banbridge

  37

  Belfast

  1,765

  Ballymena

  191

  Ballymoney

  30

  Cookstown

  55

  Craigavon

  223

  Coleraine

  197

  Dungannon

  124

  Downpatrick

  125

  Enniskillen

  156

  Londonderry

  254

  Limavady

  51

  Magherafelt

  80

  Newcastle

  18

  Newtownards

  176

  Newry

  270

  Omagh

  122

  Strabane

  84

  Strategic Investment Board
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate the costs associated with proposals to set up a Strategic Investment Board for Northern Ireland. [86621]

  Mr. Pearson
  As stated in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Draft Strategic Investment and Regeneration of Sites Order, operating costs could be in the range of £2–£3 million.

  Teachers
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the(a) satisfaction and (b) needs of teachers in Northern Ireland; and what plans he has for further research. [90621]

  Jane Kennedy
  My Department funded the Teachers' Health and Well-being Survey, which was the first of its kind for Northern Ireland's teaching profession. The report, which I launched on 16 December 2002 in partnership with the employing authorities and the teacher unions, shows that 57.7 per cent. of respondents were either very satisfied or satisfied with their jobs while 22.2 per cent. were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. The remainder fell in between both groups.

  There was a relatively high response rate to the survey by teachers. Their valuable feedback will be taken fully into account by the employing authorities, working

  693W
  closely with my Department and the teacher unions, in implementing the report's recommendations so that support services continue to improve to meet the needs of teachers. The report has been published on my Department's website and an executive summary has been sent to all teachers. There are no immediate plans for further research.

  University Top-Up Fees
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make an assessment of the impact of the introduction of university top-up fees on universities in Northern Ireland. [86619]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government are currently preparing a strategy document setting out their vision for the development and reform of higher education, including student finance. The final proposals will be published in January 2003. Until then I am not in a position to comment on the matter.

  University Research Funding
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why the results of the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise relating to university funding for Northern Ireland are not being funded. [86460]

  Jane Kennedy
  I am pleased to advise that, in the financial year 2003–04 and in each of the subsequent two financial years an additional £10 million has been allocated to the two universities for research related 694W
  work. This increase is in response to their improved performance in the recent Research Assessment Exercise and in recognition of the essential role played by the universities in overall research and development in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the level of central Government funding for university research for the current year for Northern Ireland per head of population was. [86463]

  Jane Kennedy
  Recurrent grant aid to the Northern Ireland universities for 2002–03 from the Department for Employment and Learning, based on the 2001 Census figures, amounts to £16.41 per head of population. Additionally, £4.09 per head is profiled to be spent through the Support Programme for University Research and £1.74 through the Science Research Investment Fund. These figures disregard capital funding not specifically for research initiatives and research funded by other Departments.

  West Credit Card
  Mr. McCrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the investigation into the West Credit Card Scandal has been completed; and when the report of the investigation will be made available to Parliament. [90182]

  Mr. Pearson
  A report on the allegations made about the affairs of Into the West (Tyrone & Fermanagh) Ltd. is well advanced and a final report will be issued to the funding bodies and the Northern Ireland Audit Office by February 2003.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH

  Palestinian Reform
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw)
  Yesterday I chaired a meeting in London attended by representatives of the Quartet and Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. I am very grateful that they were able to attend and contribute. We were joined through a video link by Palestinian Authority Ministers and civil society representatives, as the Israeli Government had unacceptably denied permission for them to travel to London. This arrangement was no substitute for a face-to-face conference, but I believe the meeting to have been constructive and wide ranging. It will support and complement the efforts of the Quartet on the Roadmap towards a two state settlement.

  Palestinian Reform is only one part of the work required to achieve a just and comprehensive peace, but it is an important part. It is clear that the Palestinians are committed to the reform of their institutions and have already started that process. But there remains much to be done, and they need support and encouragement. At the meeting they repeated their condemnation of violence against civilians as a means of achieving Palestinian ends and briefed us on their plans for a new Palestinian constitution, political, economic and administrative reform and the creation of a Palestinian state.
  26WS
  This is an objective the whole international community shares. The next step will be meetings in London in early February of the Taskforce on Palestinian Reform and of Quartet Envoys. It will take action from all sides, including Israel, to maintain momentum and implement the Roadmap.

  I urge the leaders of all sides to demonstrate the courage necessary to realise their obligations towards one another and turn that realisation into a genuine process of negotiation.

  I am placing in the Library of the House a summary of my understanding of the proceedings and outcomes from the meeting. The key elements were:
  An agreement that we need practical action to begin implementing the clear Palestinian declaration against violence and terrorism.
  A new Palestinian commitment to work on constitution. We expect an agreed outline by the end of this month and have promised to support their work on this.
  A clear commitment to finalising preparations for free, fair and open elections.
  Recognition of the work the PA has done on financial accountability.
  A clear message to the Palestinians on the need to do more on the judiciary.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  National Criminal Intelligence Service
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  I am pleased to announce the appointment of Peter Hampson, currently Chief Constable of West Mercia Constabulary, as Director General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service.

  Peter Hampson will take over from the current Director General, John Abbott, who retires on 21 March this year.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.

Lord Wilson of Dinton
Sir Richard Thomas James Wilson, GCB, having been created Baron Wilson of Dinton, of Dinton in the County of Buckinghamshire for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Armstrong of Ilminster and the Lord Butler of Brockwell.

Timber
2.42 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare my direct financial interest in the matter.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to enlarge the market for English and Welsh timber.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the market for wood products in Britain is worth over £5 billion with over 85 per cent of this supplied from imports. To compete, domestically grown timber must be competitively priced or meet the specialist needs of niche markets. Heat and energy schemes are beginning to provide new market opportunities and the Forestry Commission is assisting with research to develop new wood products. It is also developing new support measures for small-scale harvesting, processing and marketing.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Do the Government appreciate that low timber prices have already forced the closure of many home-grown timber mills and are damaging the big producers, for example, Forest Enterprise and the Crown Estates? Do the Government see timber fuel as a source of renewable energy? Will they stimulate investment in it, particularly through combined heat and power?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the issue of timber prices is whether in an import-dominated market, domestically grown timber can be competitive. I recognise that there have been problems on this front but it is also true that a number of timber producers and saw mills have done relatively well in maintaining their market share. As regards timber for fuels, the Government, as part of their approach to renewable fuels and carbon saving, see benefits both in using forest products and
200
in short-rotation coppice. There are a number of schemes to develop woodlands for those purposes as part of the overall approach to carbon saving.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the damage being done specifically to oak trees by squirrels? Could not some financial assistance be available to those who have suffered from the effects of that damage?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, all owners of woodlands have to face the issue of squirrels. Various control mechanisms are in place in both private and Forestry Commission woodlands. The commission is undertaking substantial research into the best form of control of grey squirrels. So there is already, through the commission, a considerable amount of activity on this front. It is, however, for the owners of woodlands to conduct their own systems of control and protection of their forests. I do not believe that there is scope for support additional to that already being given through the efforts of the commission.
Lord Clark of Windermere: My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Forestry Commission and I appreciate that timber production and income are critical. Does the Minister agree that forests and woodlands can provide many other benefits to society in the form of recreation, conservation, biodiversity and economic regeneration but only if forestry in Britain is sustainable? Can he advise the House of the Government's strategy towards sustainability in woodlands and forestry?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, both the role of forestry and the need for access to forestry for other purposes are recognised by the Government. The efforts that the Forestry Commission has made are well documented and appreciated. As to sustainability, clearly the Government's policy is to encourage the maximum uptake of sustainable timber, both in terms of our own procurement and encouraging certification. In this respect, the Forestry Commission leads not only Europe but the world in terms of certification. Indeed, the World Wildlife award to the commission last month was given for its system of independent certification of sustainable forestry management in the United Kingdom. On both fronts the commission is making a contribution. I congratulate my noble friend.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I welcome what the Government are doing in respect of the limited use of short-term coppicing as a source of energy. Would they not be equally wise to recognise that this can never be more than a very small contributor? Has the Minister seen the figures which show that to replace the energy output of the Dungeness B nuclear power station, the entire county of Kent would have to be given over to short-term coppicing? Most people would not regard that as realistic.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is well known that the Government's target for supply from all forms of renewable energy is 10 per cent. The contribution to that of short-rotation coppicing will be relatively small. Nevertheless, it is important for energy policy purposes, for carbon saving and for agricultural and forestry purposes that we support the growing of such materials and the use of forestry by-products in the energy programme. That will provide both income to the woodlands areas and significant carbon saving. But certainly it will not resolve the energy problem.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, can the Minister explain why the industries which require timber are sited so far from forests? What are the Government doing to encourage industry to move into forest locations, which are often under-populated rural areas requiring employment? Would this not save heavy lorries having to travel vast distances at high speed? Would it not also save the rebuilding and strengthening of bridges to take these lorries?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is something in that. However, the timber products industry tends to be located in areas where its markets exist. It is not therefore surprising that, for example, the furniture trade tends to be based in urban areas rather than close to forestry. Some degree of encouragement of the first-line processing of timber closer to forests could be undertaken as part of our general approach to rural policy, but that would not change the overall distribution of timber-using industries.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if we are to have the sustainable industry for which the noble Lord, Lord Clark, rightly asks, is it not essential to recognise that those who will control the market in 15 years' time are now at school? Will the Minister offer his support to the work of the forestry education initiative, which is breeding up a generation of schoolchildren who understand the widely varying uses that wood is able to provide in place of plastics, which are ecologically unfriendly?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords, I can commend the work of the forestry education initiative, in which both the trade federation and the Woodland Trust are engaged. It has a fully worked-out curriculum for various age groups. It is important that young people in school recognise the different uses of timber and the way in which it has to be managed.

Public Services
2.51 p.m.
Lord Tebbit Lord Tebbit asked Her Majesty's Government:
What calculations they have made of the recent rate of price or cost inflation in the provision of public services, notably healthcare and education.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, since the late 1970s, public expenditure has been planned and controlled at current prices, and a measure of general price inflation in the economy has been used to adjust spending plans for inflation when required.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but that was not an answer. Is he aware that his colleagues frequently claim that expenditure on such services as health and education has increased by approximately one-third under the present administration; but as we all know, output, let alone quality, has scarcely increased at all? Does not that suggest that the rate of inflation in the public services is about 6 per cent, in contrast to that in services provided by the private sector, which is probably less than 2 per cent?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords. The answer to the noble Lord's Question was clearly implicit in what I have just said. We do not make these calculations, and we have not done so for more than 20 years. The noble Lord's government did not make these calculations, because the calculations did not work. There are measures of output; they are provided in the Blue Book, and are produced by the Office for National Statistics. They do not give a measure of the effectiveness of public spending.
Education, for example, is measured in terms of pupil years. If you increase expenditure, it can be a question of either doubling the income of teachers or halving class sizes. It will appear in the same way in the statistics and yet the real outcome, rather than the output, is very different.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, this is one of those special parliamentary occasions when a Minister comes to the Dispatch Box and clears up one of the great mysteries of the age. What we all want to know is how the Government have achieved a modern miracle—to raise billions of pounds in extra tax, spend it, and produce results which are invisible to the naked eye.
Perhaps I may offer the noble Lord an explanation which he can shortly say is complete nonsense, and then tell us the real reason. Is not the reason—exactly as my noble friend Lord Tebbit says—that 59 per cent of all the sums spent by the Government on public services is disappearing in wage and cost inflation in the public sector; and that the sum left over is too small to make a difference? If that is not the real reason, will the noble Lord say what is?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord really must get out of the habit of answering his own questions. For the reason I gave in reply to the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, measures of output of the simple kind that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and apparently the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, would wish, do not measure the quality of the public service provided.
Let us stay with education as an example. Is the noble Lord seriously saying that the increase in the number of teachers is not an increase in quality? So far

203
as concerns health expenditure, is he saying that the increase in the number of doctors and nurses is not an increase in quality in the provision of health services? If those on the Benches opposite are saying so, let them say it to the teachers, the doctors and the nurses.
Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, in the 1990s, pay in the private sector rose by 51 per cent, whereas in the public sector it rose by only 42 per cent? Will he further accept that, in the year to October 2002, public sector pay rose by 3.8 per cent, compared to a 3.6 per cent rise in private sector pay? Finally, will he accept that if there is a problem in regard to improved outputs in the public sector, it cannot be laid at the door of excessive wage payments?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not have the noble Lord's figures in front of me. I have no reason to doubt them—and, if I do not doubt them, I have no reason to doubt his conclusions.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether, in terms of inflation in healthcare, there is a continuing disproportionate increase in the amount having to be set aside by the National Health Service for legal liabilities?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, unfortunately, the noble Baroness is entirely right. The growth in litigious activity in this country is greatly to be regretted. It is costing the public sector a great deal of money and is one factor that is putting a brake on reform alongside the increase in resources, which is the key to our approach to the public services.

Children: Visual Screening
2.56 p.m.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree Baroness Knight of Collingtree asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they intend to take following the report by the National Screening Committee on the visual screening of children.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the National Screening Committee is awaiting a report from its child health sub-group. On the basis of that report, the committee will make its recommendations to Ministers. We will consider any improvements to visual screening in the context of the national service framework for children.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, will the noble Baroness make urgent inquiries about the report, since there is widespread concern that the draft report recommends that children should have eye tests, not at age three and four, as previously, but at age five? Is the noble Baroness aware that one in five toddlers has semi-severe visual problems; and that if such children do not know what others see, they cannot understand and complain about their own disability? Does the noble Baroness recognise that this
204
is a severe educational problem, and that other countries are sticking to eye tests for three and four year-olds, not five year-olds? Will the Government ensure that Britain's children are not disadvantaged by any change?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am in awe of the noble Baroness's reputation in this field, so I am happy to be able to agree with her that the earlier we screen, detect and treat vision defects, the better. I understand that there has been a lively professional debate. One of the reasons why Ministers are still waiting on the report is that there has been a very open consultative process.
I understand that screening at age three is problematic. Although defects such as amblyopia can be picked up more easily, when children are immature, they are less likely to provide a reliable report. Also, there is the problem of take-up. We shall examine all the relative merits of testing at different ages. I can assure the noble Baroness that her concerns will be noted.
Lord Carter: My Lords, on the question of take-up, will a special effort be made to encourage low-income families to take advantage of visual screening?
Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords. We are concerned that in the pattern of inequalities in health there are real problems. Children from disadvantaged families often do not get the free eye test to which they are entitled. Within the national service framework for children, we very much want to ensure quality standards and additional information. The Sure Start programme, which was expanded in December last year, is a good setting for young, disadvantaged parents to be directed towards the free eye tests and the screening to which they are entitled.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the Hall report on screening, of which I have managed to obtain a rough copy, suggests that pre-school screening is very difficult because, at that age, children are not gathered together. Will the change in educational practice as regards the pre-school age group—that is, having four year-olds within a school setting—make this the ideal stage at which to begin screening? As the noble Baroness has said, a disability that is not picked up early will lead to far greater on-costs, both for those involved and for the system.
Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords, I know that there is a strong case for testing at age four to five, precisely because one has a relatively captive population which one does not have at age three to four, But we need to look more closely at other issues associated with testing at age four to five. We will do that in the context of the national service framework. I hope that the Hall report, the fourth report by the committee, Health for All Children, to which the noble Lord refers, will be finalised within the next month. We will have the advantage of that information.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I hope that I can be reassured by the noble Baroness's statement that

205
the Government will consult fully on the report. Some voluntary organisations in this field have told me that they are anxious that there will be a very uneven pattern of service across the country because of the shortage of orthoptists. Is it not the case that such tasks with small children can be done equally well by optometrists and other professionals in the field of visual handicap; and that there should be no excuse for the shortage of specialists, which the report appears to have accepted?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the noble Lord asked several questions. First, we are aware that there is uneven service provision in the way services are offered across the country. Secondly, there has been wide consultation on the Hall report, because it has been on the world-wide web for more than six months. It has provoked, as it was designed to, much consultation from across the profession and the voluntary sector. Thirdly, as far as I know, there are no shortages in this field. Unlike other parts of the health service, we are well supplied. In particular, there has been an increase of 14 per cent in optometrists in the past three years. The noble Lord is correct to say that we must be clear that the right people screen children at the right age, and that the pattern is equal across the country so that every child has the same chance.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, when and where will the screenings be carried out? Is simple eye-testing carried out in schools anymore?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, eye-testing still takes place in schools. There has never been a prescription for a particular eye test, although linear eye tests have been the pattern for many years. The Hall report does not recommend changes to that. When we look at the advice to Ministers in the context of raising standards overall, we might be able to come up with better provision generally.

Congestion Charges
3.2 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why government Ministers are to have congestion charges in London met by the taxpayer.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, there is no special exemption for government vehicles. The Government Car and Despatch Agency will be responsible for the payment of congestion charges on its vehicles and will recover costs from government departments and other customers.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. If Ministers are content to accept this benefit for themselves, do they agree that it
206
is morally wrong that low-paid public service employees such as teachers and nurses, and unpaid volunteers such as the Samaritans, all of whom must use their cars, should not get a similar benefit? Will the Minister suggest to other Ministers that they follow the example of my right honourable friend the leader of my party, who is adamant that he will not allow the taxpayer to pay his congestion charge?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, many organisations in both the private and public sectors provide cars and vans to enable staff to carry out their jobs. There will be active exemptions; for example, essential workers with Westminster City Council and the National Health Service and fire fighters. That will be a matter for employers.
The government guidance on travel by Ministers, which is available in your Lordships' Library, makes clear that Ministers are allowed to use official cars on the understanding that they will normally be working on classified papers. Security issues may also be relevant. That justifies the departments' reimbursing the GCDA for the cost of congestion charges.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, if public servants do not have to pay congestion charges, is it not logical that businesses cover their employees' costs?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, it is for employers to decide the procedures for their employees. It is not the only tax that employees must pay when travelling. There are parking taxes, road, bridge and tunnel tolls, and so on. We believe that the Government's policies have been tried and tested over many years.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, is it the mark of a socialist government that a Minister's driver coming to work must pay the charge himself but the Minister swans around in the car at the expense of the taxpayer; that is to say, his driver?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, that need not be the case. Ministers who drive to their place of work must pay the congestion charge. If they are picked up within the congestion-charging zone, the charge will be reimbursed by the Government.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is so long since the party opposite was in government that it has forgotten what it means to have a ministerial job—I hope noble Lords enjoyed that—and to have red boxes, which are confidential? Some of the questions are absurd. Will my noble friend say that the congestion charge—if the details are right, and there are doubts about that—will make a sensible contribution to traffic management in London and other cities?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am sure we all hope, for the sake of Londoners, that the congestion charging scheme will be a success, We believe that, done properly, congestion charging is one way of dealing with traffic problems.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, on the general point, should not the proceeds from these charges go to the local authorities involved? If the revenues do not cover the administrative costs, is it equitable to pass the bill to United Kingdom taxpayers?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the proceeds of congestion charging in London will go to Transport for London. The Government will be involved in consultations on how that money would best be spent. Obviously, it will be spent on trying to improve travel conditions for Londoners.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, given that vehicles converted to run on LPG and electricity are exempt from the charge, what proportion of the government car fleet is already converted, and what progress has been made on speeding up the programme?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, around one-third of the government car fleet has already been converted, presumably to the power-shift register using liquid petroleum gas. The target is to have 75 per cent of the car fleet running on power-shift registered fuels.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the most efficient and effective way of getting around London is the Underground? When it works, it works extremely well. When it works! Just now, I travelled from King's Cross in around a quarter of an hour—far quicker than taking a taxi from north London, particularly in recent months, as noble Lords know too well. Will the Minister consider using some of the proceeds of congestion charging to improve the Underground where necessary, particularly the Circle line?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, we should be clear that the money will not come to the Government. It will go to Transport for London and will be controlled by the Mayor in consultation with the Government. However, the public/private partnership put in place initially on 31st December 'will make a considerable difference to Londoners' satisfaction with Tube services.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, we have heard a lot from the Official Opposition about congestion charging. Has the Minister heard any constructive proposal from them on how to deal with the terrible problems of congestion in London?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: Not often, my Lords, but there are many honourable exceptions. I look to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, as the man who brought home to me the importance of holes in the road. Since then, we have been working very hard to fill them.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords—
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Peyton!
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the Minister aware of how warmly I welcome that tribute—so long as I can take it as sincerely meant? Is he aware that implicit in one of his earlier answers was the advice that the papers that Ministers carry are much more important than Ministers themselves?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I have a feeling that our newest colleague, the noble Lord. Lord Wilson of Dinton, could probably assure the noble Lord that his analysis is correct. There is, however, a serious point. As former government members on the Benches opposite will know, Ministers are not allowed to take their red boxes on to the street and there are restrictions on taking them on public transport as they often contain very sensitive classified papers. So although a bracing walk may occasionally be tempting, one is sometimes forced to take the car.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it seems to be the habit—it has happened twice this week—for Ministers to provoke the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, into rising to his feet when he had not intended to do so. On a technical point, can the Minister say whether any progress has been made in ensuring that there is a payment point in the Palace of Westminster where some 4,000 people are employed? It may not be his responsibility, but, as a transport spokesmen, perhaps he should interest himself in it.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, it as a pertinent point. I believe I can assure the House that Black Rod is looking into it.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, may I offer the Minister a constructive suggestion from the Official Opposition? Will he have a look at Hamlet's soliloquy,
"To be or not to be",
and its despair at the corruption in the court of the King of Denmark? Shakespeare has a striking phrase for the abuse of power by those on high—he calls it the

209
insolence of office. Is that not a fitting description of Ministers who impose a tax on the rest of us but duck out of it themselves?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords—
A noble Lord: Show us your Shakespeare!
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I certainly would not follow the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, in such a convoluted example. As on so many other occasions, I wonder who his copywriters are.

Zimbabwe
3.13 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever asked Her Majesty's Government:
What reports they have received on power-sharing talks between Zanu-PF and the Movement for Democratic Change in Zimbabwe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): My Lords, both ZANU-PF and the MDC have issued statements denying that they have been involved in any recent discussions on power-sharing. The United Kingdom has encouraged efforts, led by the presidents of South Africa and Nigeria, to build inter-party dialogue in Zimbabwe.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the two names linked with this initiative have been closely involved with some of the worst excesses of the Mugabe regime, and that normal relations with Zimbabwe should not be resumed until after free and fair elections?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Government's position is absolutely clear. We have said that we want to see the restoration of democracy and human rights in Zimbabwe. We want to see a stable Zimbabwe. We also want to see Zimbabwe's economy restored so that the current humanitarian crisis can be dealt with from within Zimbabwe.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, due to the current situation, there is a great deal of concern and some chaos regarding the emergence of political decisions in Zimbabwe? In the light of that, does she recognise that Zimbabweans, black or white, who stand up for democracy and the rule of law could be particularly at risk? Can she assure the House that, in issuing visas, our own High Commission will bear very much in mind the claim and the record of those seeking asylum as to whether they have shown commitment to those principles in Zimbabwe?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right that the difficulties with human rights and
210
the political situation in Zimbabwe continue. Indeed, in a recent case, the mayor of Harare was arrested for holding meetings on matters that fell within his jurisdiction. It is therefore important that, in issuing visas, our High Commission is not only concerned with the human rights and political situation in Zimbabwe, but, as has been said in the House before, keeps a watch for those seeking visas who may have been part of the continuing repression.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recall that the Government recently published ideas about concerted international action to deal with humanitarian catastrophes within states? Is she aware that the United States Administration seem to be thinking along similar lines to those of the United Kingdom Government? Does she recall that, both in 1999 and in 2002, Mr Kofi Annan said the following in the United Nations human rights commission:
"No government has the right to hide behind national sovereignty in order to violate the human rights or fundamental freedoms of its peoples"?
Is it not time for those governments who are shocked by what is going on in Zimbabwe to get together and take steps to prevent what could turn out to be a major humanitarian catastrophe by starvation?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, that there needs to be concerted international action. On the matter of human rights, he will recall that a human rights resolution on Zimbabwe was tabled at the UN Commission on Human Rights but that a blocking action by African states prevented that resolution going through. With respect to the broader humanitarian situation, the international community is gravely concerned. I myself have raised this matter with colleagues particularly in southern African countries, and we have looked at the implications for their countries in particular. We need to work to restore human rights, the rule of law and a stable democratic government in Zimbabwe for the good of ordinary Zimbabweans.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the Minister noticed the report in today's Washington Times that Mugabe might be prepared to retire to somewhere such as Malaysia and live on the proceeds of his 100 million dollars in ill-gotten gains? Does she agree that, in the light of what has happened in the case of other dictators such as Abacha in Nigeria and Fujimori in Peru, it would be totally unacceptable to allow Mugabe to walk off with the wealth that he has stolen from the Zimbabwean people?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, in a speech in Lusaka on 14th January, Mugabe said that,
"it would be foolhardy and counter-revolutionary to give up power 10 months after claiming victory in an election".
He also said:
"I am not retiring. I will never, never go into exile. I fought for Zimbabwe and when I die I will be buried in Zimbabwe, nowhere else".
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, has the noble Baroness seen the latest detailed documentary advice showing how children who do not have the right ZANU-PF connections are being starved and consequently dying? Is she aware of that evidence about this violent and racist regime? If she has not seen it, would she like me to supply it to her later this afternoon?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am aware of what has been said about the politicisation of food aid in Zimbabwe—indeed, we have discussed it in this House. I have sought to reassure the House on various occasions that the money we are giving for humanitarian assistance in Zimbabwe goes through the UN and NGO channels. There are two different channels: the channel for the destitute, which is the UN/NGO channel; and the Government of Zimbabwe channel by means of the monopoly of the Grain Marketing Board. It is the latter food aid that is being politicised and diverted. We have very little influence, as noble Lords know, with the Government of Zimbabwe on that.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, do the Government recognise the constructive role played by the Government of Mozambique in welcoming fugitives from Zimbabwe, both farm workers and farmers" Do they recognise Mozambique's role in the Commonwealth and its possible importance as a diplomatic player?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Earl is quite right. There are several countries in southern Africa whose role in this crisis is absolutely critical. Mozambique is one of those countries. I have had discussions with the President and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Mozambique. I am aware that President Chisano has worked tirelessly behind the scenes. I believe that Mozambique will continue to take a keen interest in these matters.
Lord Acton: My Lords, are the Government keeping under constant review the level of food aid to Zimbabweans, and will they increase it as and when they can?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are keeping that under constant review. A recent assessment identified that some 7.8 million Zimbabweans will now require food aid. Our humanitarian assistance has increased to £49 million, and my right honourable friend Clare Short has said that we will continue to do what we can to help the poor and vulnerable in Zimbabwe.

Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House, between the two debates this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Bach will repeat a Statement on missile defence.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
3.21 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Henley and the Baroness Cumberlege set down for today shall each be limited to two-and-a-half hours.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I would like to make reference to item 2 of the report—
Noble Lords: Wrong business!
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
3.22 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
I draw particular attention to three of the recommendations made in the report. First, know that many Deputy Chairmen, members of the Procedure Committee and other Members of the House feel strongly on the question of attendance of debates of noble Lords who take part. A substantial number of speakers in recent debates have excused themselves from the greater part of the debate and, in particular, have been absent from the opening or closing speeches.
The report sets out the guidance in the Companion, which is clear and firm. Noble Lords who are unable to be present for the opening and closing speeches are expected to withdraw from the list. An apology at the start of the speech is insufficient.
Secondly, the Procedure Committee has noted an increasing tendency for irrelevant supplementary questions to be asked and answered. The report reminds the House that supplementary questions should be confined to the subject of the original question and that Ministers should not answer irrelevant questions.
Thirdly, the Procedure Committee has noted recent instances of Back-Bench interventions on Statements which are far from brief. With a 20-minute limit on Back-Bench questions and answers, long interventions and replies are unfair to others who may wish to speak.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 26) be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. Relevance of supplementary questions and answers
The Committee has noted an increasing tendency for irrelevant supplementary questions to he asked and answered. We remind the House of the guidance in the Companion to the Standing Orders (paragraph 4.96):
"Supplementary questions should be confined to the subject of the original question, and ministers should not answer irrelevant questions."
2. Attendance by speakers in debates
The Committee has also observed since the start of this session a frequent disregard of the customs of the House in relation to attendance at debate. These are clearly set out in paragraphs 4.23 to 4.25 of the Companion to the Standing orders:
"4.23 Members of the House taking part in a debate are expected to attend the greater part of that debate. It is considered discourteous for Members not to be present for the opening speeches, for at least the speech before and that following their own, and for the winding-up speeches. Members who become aware in advance that they are unlikely to be able to stay until the end of a debate should remove their names from the list of speakers. Ministers may decide not to answer, orally or in writing, points made by a speaker who does not stay to hear the minister's closing speech.
4.24 There are reasons for these customs. Members who have missed the speeches before their own will not know what has already been said and so points may be repeated or missed. Members who leave soon after speaking are lacking in courtesy to others, who may wish to question, or reply to, points they have raised. Debate may degenerate into a series of set speeches if speakers do not attend throughout.
4.25 It is, however, recognised that some Members may have commitments related to the judicial or committee work of the House which may prevent them from being able to attend as much of the debate as might otherwise be expected."
Recently, some speakers have not only failed to stay for "the greater part" of a debate but have been absent during the opening or closing speeches. We remind the House that this is contrary to well-established custom and that Lords who find themselves unable to stay until the end of a debate should normally withdraw their names from the list, and not simply apologise when beginning their speeches.
3. Length of Interventions on statements
The Companion to the Standing Orders (paragraph 4.81) States: "Ministerial statements are made for the information of the House, and although brief comments and questions from all quarters of the House are allowed, statements should not be made the occasion for an immediate debate".
The Committee has noted recent instances of interventions from backbenchers which are far from brief. We remind the House that, with a twenty-minute limit on backbench questions and answers, long interventions and long replies are unfair to others who may wish to speak.
4. Time limit for submitting Private Notice Questions
At present a Private Notice Question has to be submitted to the Leader of the House before 12 noon, but before 10 a.m. on a day when the House sits before 1 p.m. This means that the earlier time limit now applies on Thursdays when the House sits at 11 a.m. even when Starred Questions are not taken until 3 p.m.
"Accordingly we recommend that the earlier time limit should apply only on days when Starred Questions (if any) are to be taken before 1 p.m.
5. Time for presentation of bills
Another consequence of the new arrangements for Thursday sittings is that, under Standing Order 42(3), bills can no longer be presented after Starred Questions in the afternoon. That paragraph is as follows:
214
"(3) Bills may be presented either at the beginning or end of Public Business. Bills brought from the House of Commons may be read the First time at any convenient time during Public Business."
We recommend that the Standing Order should be amended by the addition of a new second sentence: "On Thursdays Bills may also be presented after Starred Questions in the afternoon."
6. The Companion to the Standing Orders
The Committee has approved the publication of a new edition of the Companion to the Standing Orders to take account of significant changes since the publication of the 18th edition in October 2000. The changes agreed by the House on 24 July 2002 on the basis of the Report of the Leader's Group on the Working Practices of the House and the 5th Report from this Committee, Session 2001–02, were for a trial period of two sessions. The changes will be incorporated in the new edition, with footnotes to show that they are for a trial period.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I would like to apologise to the House for my previous intervention—
Lord Carter: My Lords, I welcome this report, particularly item 2 on the attendance by speakers in debates. Noble Lords will be aware that, early in the previous Parliament, the usual channels agreed that a note should be placed at the top of the speakers' list, which states:
"A Lord who becomes aware in advance that they are unlikely to be able to stay until the end of a debate should normally remove their name from the list of speakers".
Unfortunately, we did not realise that noble Lords would treat the word "normally" as a term of art. I am afraid that the Procedure Committee has fallen into the same mistake, because the Companion clearly says:
"Members who become aware in advance that they are unlikely to be able to stay until the end of a debate should remove their names from the list of speakers".
However, the report goes on to use the words,
"should normally withdraw their names".
That allows noble Lords to misinterpret the clear guidance in the Companion, which states that if noble Lords cannot be present at the beginning and end and for a reasonable amount of the debate, they should not put their names down to speak, however important they believe their contribution might be.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it was on the same point that I endeavoured to intervene on two occasions—one wrongly, I fear. I apologise to the House for my premature entry into the debate.
I wished to speak on the same point as was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. It is most annoying to noble Lords who sit here for many hours listening to a debate to be told at the beginning of the debate, often by very senior Members of the House, that they cannot stay until the end of the debate. Nobody is so great that they should not obey the Standing Orders and rules of this House. What is more, whatever they have to say and however important it is, it can be left for another occasion when they can be present to hear the debate, or certainly the opening and closing speeches.

215
I say that advisedly, but there may be some excuse for them, because some of them may be a little shortsighted and may not read the list of speakers properly. Therefore, I suggest that the notice should be placed at the very top of the speakers' list in bold red, blue or even black type, so there can be no mistaking the Standing Order. I am sure that all Members, when they see the Standing Order boldly printed, will obey it.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, from time to time, Members of the House who have not been here very long ask advice. When I have been asked advice about whether they have to stay to the end of the debate, I say absolutely that if they cannot stay to the end of a debate, they should not take part in it. I only wish that we could drop the word "normally" from the extract from the Companion that is given at the top of the speakers' list. Would the Chairman of Committees agree that the word "normally" should be dropped?
I make one other comment on paragraph 3 and the length of interventions on Statements. I agree with what it says. On occasions, we have heard enormously long speeches that deny many noble Lords the chance to intervene on Statements. However—and here I look at the two Front Benches opposite—I am not sure whether 20 minutes for what are allegedly only two questions is not a bit long and out of proportion. I say that with all due respect for the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benches. I wonder whether there is any way in which to balance the time better and give Back-Benchers more of the 40 minutes, if Front-Benchers would willingly take a little less time, or if they were compelled to do so.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I intervene both as a member of the Procedure Committee and as a member of the panel of Deputy Chairmen to endorse wholeheartedly what the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees said. It is rare that someone from this side of the House can totally endorse the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Carter, Lord Stoddart and Lord Dubs. All I would say is that those of us on the panel of Deputy Chairmen are watching the point raised in item 2 most closely. I give advance warning to the 21 Back-Bench speakers in the two debates this afternoon that I am on the Woolsack from 5.30 to 7 p.m. and shall be marking the card.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have a different point for the Chairman of Committees. Am I right in thinking that just before the meeting of the Procedure Committee on this issue, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal—or it may have been the Government Chief Whip—circulated a private memorandum to certain members of the committee seeking to suppress discussion on a certain part of the committee's agenda? I hope that that is not the reason why, on that occasion, I had a little difficulty attracting the noble Lord's attention when I wished to speak.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I associate these Benches with many of the remarks that have been made. Will the committee look at the possibility of some sanctions
216
being applied on those who break the rule? For example, they could be put lower down the list the next time one is drawn up for interventions. When we have discussions of this sort, everyone denies that they have ever done it and all promise best behaviour for the future, yet the practice goes on. On coming into this place, having had a short experience in another place, I found that one of the joys of this place was to take part in debates to which people listened, in which they participated and for which they stayed. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that I have noticed over the past few years that the main offenders are not senior people in this House, but people who were senior in another place and who still seem to think that their Privy Councillorship or their previous office give them special privileges and rights in this place, which simply do not exist.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, does the Chairman of Committees agree that the problem with some supplementary questions is not just that they are wide of the mark, but that they are often too long and are read?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I should like to utter a few words in defence of the word "normally". The spirit of this is clear to the House. People who know before a debate starts that they will not be present throughout the opening and closing speeches should not participate and should withdraw their name. That is the normal situation. An abnormal situation—which makes the use of "normally" possibly apposite—is when you think that you are going to be available at the time when the closing speeches are to be made, but you get an urgent telephone call just before those speeches occur. You rush out and try awfully hard to make the person at the other end somewhat brief in their observations over the telephone, but it could be urgent. Should that person, rushing back into the Chamber, be debarred from speaking? That might be an abnormal situation, so "normally" is possibly correct.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have two points The first point, which was also made by my noble friend Lady Sharples, is that questions and answers are almost always too long. It would be a great help if Ministers could be encouraged—I am sure that the Government Chief Whip could do this—to make their answers as short as possible. People asking supplementary questions should also be prevailed upon to make them shorter. They both go on too long and it is a bore for everyone else who is trying to get in and finds that they cannot.
Secondly, does the Chairman of Committees agree that one important aspect of item 2, which he did not emphasise so strongly, is that noble Lords should be present for the opening speeches and for at least the speech before and that following their own? Noble Lords frequently make speeches and then buzz off. A very senior noble Lord did that the other day. Within two minutes of making his speech he had gone. Admittedly, he was discovered talking in another part of the House. Noble Lords should remain in their seats to listen to the following speech.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, do we not have a problem in that the major offenders in relation to paragraph 2 are not in the House today?
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am a little worried about the debate. I have been nearly 25 years in the House. The system seemed to work quite well 20 or so years ago, when I first came here. That is when I used to make speeches. Noble Lords will be glad to know that I seldom do so nowadays. It is quite feasible for someone to have an appropriate contribution to make to a debate, if only from that expertise that we continually claim to possess. It has also often happened that such a person has been in a position to contribute that expertise and yet, because of outside engagements and other eventualities, including phone calls, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, has been unable to wait until the end. We should not be too severe in this matter. "Normally" is quite reasonable. I have my suspicions, but I would not go so far as to say that this is an attempt to stifle debate. It is not. However, in a sense it has tinges of an attempt to stifle opinion, which is just as bad.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, next week we have a debate that will extend for two days. I ask this question because I do not know the answer. Is it imperative that the people who are down for the second day should be present on the first day?
Noble Lords: Yes.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, so the answer is that a person who has put down their name should be present on both days throughout if possible.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I shall attempt to answer some of the questions that have been put. They fall broadly into two or three categories, one of which is attendance at debates. I am most grateful for the words of support from around the House, starting with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who, like the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, queried the use of the word "normally". In the current revision of the Companion, "normally" will be dropped, so it will read,
"should remove their name from the list of speakers".
On the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, the Companion clearly says that Members should be present for at least the speech before their own and that following it. That is already covered.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, suggested that the notice at the top of the list of speakers should be put in bold type. I am told by the Government Chief Whip that it will be in future.
The amount of time allocated to Front Benchers and Back Benchers on Statements could be discussed at the next meeting of the Procedure Committee. I am also grateful to those who supported the proposal that interventions under the present arrangements should not be too long.
218
When I was answering Parliamentary Questions, I always thought that the best answers were generally "Yes, my Lords" or "No, my Lords". It might be good if Ministers could do that more often and if noble Lords asking supplementaries could keep them as short as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked about the two-day debate that we are having next week. Anyone who has their name down to speak in that debate, whether they are speaking on the first day or the second day, should definitely be present for the opening speeches on the first day and for as much as possible of the rest of the debate—certainly for the speeches around their own speech and for the winding up speeches on the second day. I hope that noble Lords will not put their name down to speak in that debate unless they are able to fulfil that commitment.
Lastly, I come to a completely different point made by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. I was not aware of anything such as a confidential memo being circulated. It is quite normal for the usual channels to circulate memos among themselves, but I am not certain what it was about and what relevance it might have.
I hope that I have answered most of the questions. I am conscious that, if we go on with this debate any more, those who put their names down to speak in the debate this afternoon may find themselves running up against dinner engagements.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I was present at both the beginning and end of the noble Lord's speech, but I did not notice a reply to my point about the abnormal situation that can occur.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I accept that there could be an abnormal situation. I am sorry that I did not reply to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. He spoke about receiving a phone call. I was not quite sure when that phone call would take place—whether it would be before or after he had spoken in the debate. If he had spoken, he should obviously then wait for the winding up. If the phone call comes through, he should preferably try to put off receiving it until the debate is over.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not in the least bit satisfied with what the noble Lord has said. I am told that a private memorandum was indeed circulated by the Lord Privy Seal seeking to restrict discussion on a part of the agenda of the meeting over which he presided. I am surprised that the Chairman of Committees did not receive a copy of that memorandum, but perhaps he was thought as unreliable as I am.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, if there was a memorandum, I understand that it was circulated within the usual channels. I do not myself recall having received a copy of it, so I find myself in some difficulty in replying to the noble Lord's question.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sentencing Policy
3.42 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley rose to call attention to sentencing policy and, specifically, to the debate on sentencing for burglary and firearms offences; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, sentencing policy is a pretty big topic, and it is possibly not one entirely suitable for a short, time-limited debate on a Wednesday afternoon, particularly with the virtually total lack of interest shown by the press and broadcasting authorities in what happens in this House, even when a debate such as this seems to attract such a high-quality list of speakers. I am pleased to say that we have two former Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, a former Attorney-General, former Home Office Ministers, a former chairman of the Parole Board, special advisers to the Home Secretary, a chairman of the Youth Justice Board and much more. I trust that other noble Lords will not feel belittled for not being singled out, but we have a very high-quality list.
We must see the bigger picture, which is possibly overlarge for this afternoon. For that reason, I thought that I would offer some focus for the afternoon's debate by concentrating on sentencing for burglary and firearms offences. I suspect that most noble Lords will have a pretty good idea as to why I want to concentrate on those two issues. First, they have both been in the news somewhat in recent days. Secondly, there is a considerable degree of confusion in my mind and, I imagine, the minds of other noble Lords, as to what is exactly the Government's policy and intentions in this area.
There is also—dare I say it—confusion, certainly in my mind, as to who exactly in the Government has responsibility for initiating policy in this area, and who will take such policies forward. Therefore, I wish to say how grateful I am—I suspect that we all are—to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for coming here this afternoon and offering to reply to us. I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to him when he helps to clear up the confusion—it is certainly my confusion—as to where the Government stand on the subject.
We are all rather used to mixed messages coming from the present Administration. It happens with alarming frequency. For example, it was only the other day that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made some innocent remarks about the future of this House, only to be contradicted very soon afterwards by the Leader of the House of Commons. Recently, we heard the Foreign Secretary, preparing no doubt for a new career as a bookmaker, offering odds on a war with Iraq, only to be rapidly corrected by the combined guns of the Secretary of State for Defence and the Prime Minister's Office. It is not only the Secretary of State for Education and Skills who voices his views on top-up fees for students, as he is joined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Overseas Development, both of whom seem to be completely at odds with his views.
220
On the euro, we seem to have been living for a long time with very mixed messages emerging from the two courts of No. 10 and No. 11.
On the two areas that I have highlighted this afternoon—sentencing for burglary and for firearms offences—we have reached new heights of confusion. At times it might seem highly comic but, as recent events have shown, they are not areas of comedy. In some cases, they are highly tragic and deeply serious. We deserve a better, more clearly thought-out response from Her Majesty's Government, and I trust that is what we will get from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, this afternoon.
I shall start with burglary. We must begin with the new guidance that was offered by the Lord Chief Justice some time in December last year. I would be the first to say that it is quite right and proper that he should issue guidance to the judges. I have no complaints about that. It might then have been misinterpreted, particularly by some in the press. One might not necessarily agree with all that he had to say. It might even be that the press did not always do justice to his words. However, it is perfectly right and proper that he should offer such guidance on sentencing to judges so that they know roughly the remit in which they ought to operate.
Many think that the approach of the Lord Chief Justice, as they understand it, could be termed as too soft on crime. We know that the Government intend to be, as they put it, tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. His approach is thought to be too soft in that first and second-time convicted burglars should not necessarily always expect to go to gaol. I tend to favour the view that in the main they should go to gaol, but I say that merely as an aside. The point is that the Lord Chief Justice was quite entitled to make his views known, and was quite right to do so.
Some time later, in due course, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor decided that he should join in the debate. Again, I imagine that that is quite right and proper. As he offered support for the Lord Chief Justice on the "Today" programme, we heard—this is possibly the comic part—that most people were quite happy to see burglars, even if it was their second offence, kept out of gaol providing there were "no aggravating elements", whatever he meant by that. In my view, a burglary is always pretty aggravating.
I also find it extraordinary that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor thinks that most people share his view on the subject, but perhaps he and I live on different planets. Most people whom I come across certainly think that burglars should go to prison, and quite a lot of them think that they should go to prison for a very long time indeed. Of course, that does not mean that they should. That is why we have judges, why the judges do the sentencing, and why we do not have mob law. The point is that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was, I suspect, wrong to claim that he had mass popular support for his views on sentencing policy.
There is another party that does not seem to share the noble and learned Lord's views on sentencing for burglary, and so he would obviously think that it was not in line with "most people". That party is No. 10. As the press put it soon after he had spoken:
"No. 10 slaps down Irvine over jail for repeat burglars".
That appeared in the Evening Standard on 8th January. On the same day, the Sun stated:
"Blair slaps down Irvine on burglars",
and we were also assured that at Question Time the Prime Minister would want to send out a clear message that burglars, particularly second offenders, would go to prison irrespective of the effect that that might have on the prison population.
To add to the confusion, the Sunday Times contained further reports, allegedly from a senior government figure. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, explained whether the quotations were made up by the Sunday Times or whether they represent the Government's views. That senior government spokesman discussed the "muddled and confused" thinking of two "old codgers". Referring to the Lord Chief Justice, the government spokesman said:
"To do the old codger justice, I think his intention was different to his muddled and out-of-touch presentation because I don't think he meant that those who committed other forms of offences should be let off if they subsequently committed a burglary. But there is no doubt that some judges interpreted it that way".
I hope that it is clear why I am interested in hearing the comments of the noble and learned Lord. The spokesman went on to say that the intervention of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had,
"merely confused the issue further by backing Woolf without that proviso".
He added:
"Neither of them are politicians. Derry has a slight requirement to be part of the government, given that he is paid as the lord chancellor and wouldn't be in this position if we hadn't been elected.
"Woolf just doesn't understand the world he is operating in, in terms of communication. Derry is expected to, and that is why Tony was so livid with him".
I should be grateful for a further explanation from the Government about what that spokesman was on about and what exactly he meant.
I am very confused and muddled as a result. Just what exactly is government policy in this area? I hope that the noble and learned Lord will clearly tell us. Can he also assure us that his noble and learned friend is wrong, or will he try to use some Alice in Wonderland double-speak and assure us that all are right—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and other spokesmen? I feel that I am "Confused of Carlisle" and I should like the noble and learned Lord to "unconfuse" me.
I turn briefly to gun crime. We have all known for some time of a growing gun culture in certain parts of inner cities, which is closely allied to a growing drugs trade—another area, dare I say in passing, in which we have rather mixed messages from the Government. I
222
am sure that the Government have been actively considering sensible measures in this area to deal with the growing problem of gun crime. In fact, we have an assurance from the Prime Minister himself, no less, that a month ago the Government were actively considering the possibility of a mandatory five-year sentence for illegal possession of a firearm. He made that clear on 8th January this year at Prime Minister's Questions. Although they had been thinking about that—actively considering it, so we were told—they did not bother to put it into the Criminal Justice Bill, which was introduced in another place before Christmas.
Then in the early hours of 2nd January this year, we had the tragic murder of the two young girls, Latisha Shakespear and Charlene Ellis, and the wounding of two others in a dreadful incident in Birmingham. Pretty soon afterwards, in what appeared to be a classic knee-jerk reaction, a junior Home Office Minister—I believe that it was Mr John Denham—assured us on the "Today" programme that a mandatory five-year sentence for illegal possession would be introduced. He also told us that that was not a knee-jerk reaction because the Government had been considering it actively for some months but that although they had not bothered to put it in the Criminal Justice Bill they would now do so. A little later, however, they said, "Actually, the five-year sentence would not be mandatory and the judges would have some discretion". In passing, as always, the Minister received some support from Dr Kim Howells, of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, who referred to the evils of rap music in terms of creating the gun culture. I must ask whether we are likely to see yet further powers added to the Criminal Justice Bill allowing either the Home Secretary or the Minister responsible for culture to introduce censorship of music or whatever it is that is undesirable or subversive.
I make it clear that I do not have any easy answers about how to deal with the growing problem of gun crime. I am sure that that is the case for many of us. I am sure that there is much that can and should be done and that there are no easy fixes. We are bound on a long and hard road that will be hard to follow. A five-year mandatory sentence for illegal possession—that knee-jerk reaction—could be imposed simply for an administrative error: someone might forget to renew their firearms certificate. That does not appear to be the most constructive way to go about things.
Again, I am confused about what the Government are doing and I trust that the noble and learned Lord will do his utmost to "unconfuse" me and let me know a little more so that I can see the full picture. That should not, I suspect, be too difficult. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on introducing this short debate. I remind the House that I have the privilege of chairing the all-party penal affairs group.

223
My view is that the newspaper headlines about the Lord Chief Justice's guidance to sentencers following convictions for burglary are mischievous, misleading and grossly inaccurate. They do not add up to what the irresponsible tabloids, such as the Daily Mail and the Daily Express—and some of the grown-up newspapers as well—have dubbed "a burglars' charter". This is a manufactured row that blithely ignores the facts and sets out to distort for narrow party-political reasons. The fact is that most burglaries are carried out to raise money to pay for drug abuse. I know of no treatment for burglary, although I do know of several successful treatments for drug addiction. That is rightly where I believe the focus should be.
In the 12 months to last September, all crime fell by 7 per cent and domestic burglary was down by the same amount. The British Crime Survey shows that since 1997 burglary is down by 39 per cent. Those are the facts that too many newspapers and other media ignore.
The second largest group of people in prison have been sentenced for burglary: a total of 9,130 men and women as at last June. The second largest group of prisoners remanded in custody are charged with burglary: 1,990 out of a total of 13,080 last June. In both cases, those totals are higher than those convicted of or awaiting trial for charges involving drugs, robbery, theft and handling and sexual offences.
The public are getting a bad and expensive deal out of sending to prison too many people whose offences do not justify that. Two out of every three people sent to prison are back inside within two years, at a cost of around £32,000 a year. There are 5,000 more people in prison now than a year ago. The public's money is also misspent because too many people are remanded in custody who later do not receive custodial sentences. In 2000, some 52 in every 100 male prisoners on remand did not get a prison sentence and two out of every three women on remand in prison did not get a custodial sentence. About one in five of male and female prisoners sent to prison on remand were subsequently acquitted. The public are being misled into believing that prison works. It does not; certainly not in terms of reconviction rates. I shall illustrate the point for noble Lords. Of every 100 people who serve a community sentence, 11 fewer are reconvicted within two years compared with those who are gaoled. The crude figures are a reconviction rate of 44 per cent for those serving community sentences against 55 per cent for those given custodial sentences, and community sentences cost one-tenth the amount of keeping someone in prison.
Of course, those convicted of serious and violent crimes belong in prison where serious work can be, and increasingly is being, done in dealing with offending behaviour, drug and alcohol abuse and basic literacy and numeracy skills. However, I have to say that none of that work is helped by overcrowding. But for many other types of offender, non-custodial community sentences are sensible and adequate where properly designed and resourced and they can and do help people to live more fulfilling lives.
224
I shall take it as an unhappy slip of the tongue that, according to today's Daily Telegraph, the Home Secretary, Mr David Blunkett, regards community sentences as "simply being let off". That echoes the slipshod newspaper reporting of "people walking free", as they put it, after being convicted and given a community sentence. I am encouraged to take the generous view that it was a slip of the tongue on the part of the Home Secretary when I recall what he said in March last year:
"If anyone … seriously believes that a further exponential rise in the prison population for short-term prisoners and first-time offenders is the way to ensure our safety, then they are sorely deluded".
As the Lord Chief Justice said yesterday,
"a community sentence can provide protection for three years during which a combination of tagging and curfew orders will keep the offender off the streets".
Let us compare that with what happens over custodial sentences: three in every four sentences are for 12 months or less—that is, 80,000 a year roughly; 40,000 are for three months or less; and 14,000 are for one month or less. That gives the Prison Service no chance at all to do any serious work with prisoners in trying to address their offending behaviour.
I believe that parliamentarians and the media, as well as sentencers and the Probation Service, need to argue the merits of community sentences, where appropriate, as a more effective route to rehabilitation. It really is simple: if better and more effective ways of addressing offending behaviour and its causes are used through the range of community sentences, communities can be made safer and, in turn, our prisons more effective and less overcrowded.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for this timely debate. Looking at today's newspapers, he could not have picked a better day or a better time to discuss issues affecting sentencing policy.
We have already read press reports that the police will now give scant regard to low levels of incidents of burglary. We gave up reporting car crime some time ago; if we are not very careful, if this is the policy advocated by certain police forces, then burglary may follow the same pattern.
Firearm offences are also a matter of serious concern, particularly to the black community. Black-on-black crime and drugs feature prominently in our inner cities. All that requires not a knee-jerk reaction but evidence-based policies and practices. The current explosion in gun crime is very much a young male, inner city phenomenon. We also need to address the causes which drive young people to use guns.
Today's newspapers have extensive reports on the statement of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, on sentencing guidelines. I subscribe fully to what the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, has just said. The Lord Chief Justice is right to place emphasis on community sentences as a starting point when considering what sentences are appropriate in certain cases. To interpret this as a "burglar's charter" is mischievous.

225
The noble and learned Lord has vast experience of prisons and prison conditions and he is right to point out that community sentences for less serious burglaries would "relieve the overcrowding" in prisons. I hope that there is no pressure on the judiciary from the executive to alter this very delicate balance. Of course, public confidence is shaped by the quality of service provided by the criminal justice system. But, at times, we have to lead public opinion and not simply follow it. The Government have a clear role here.
Heat has been generated by the Lord Chief Justice's recent comments on burglary but precious little light has been shed. In 1991, 28 per cent of offenders sentenced for burglary received a custodial sentence. That figure had increased to 42 per cent by 1996 and to 51 per cent by 2001. Some 40 per cent of those convicted of burglary in 2001 received a community sentence—a position unchanged from 10 years ago. The main declines in non-custodial sentences were in absolute or conditional discharges and fines.
I chair NACRO—the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. We have examined the criminal statistics for 2001. Those demonstrate that the suggestion that the sentencing climate for burglars has become too lenient is simply not correct. The opposite is true. Guidance given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, that most first-time burglars should not receive a custodial sentence is not a dramatic move in the direction of leniency but rather little more than a restatement of the current position. We need to reaffirm the principle that offenders should not be sent to prison except when necessary and, in those circumstances, only for as long as necessary. That will particularly be the case for those who might be engaged in burglary to fund a drug habit and for whom community-based drug treatment will be far more effective than a spell in prison.
Those who advocate an even tougher sentencing climate should explain how that would work in practice. The questions that we need to address are these. Should burglary on its own, as a first offence, have a non-custodial sentence? Should offences against the person be treated as a second, separate offence? Should more threatening burglary—for example, burglary carried out at night with firearms—be treated differently from that which involves entering empty premises during the day?
With regard to firearms, it is evident that there has been a major rise in the use of air weapons. In 1990, the use of such weapons accounted for 5,380 notifiable offences; in 1995, that figure had risen to 7,568; and, by last year, there were 12,340 such offences. The figures on robberies involving a firearm are mixed. Recorded offences of this type increased from 2,939 in 1997–98 to 5,484 in 2001–02, although some of that rise can be put down to changes in recording practices. But, taking a longer view, one can see that the 2001–02 figures show little change from 1991.
Tough sentencing is unlikely in itself to have an impact but it would be wrong to assume that it has none. Equally, drug treatment and other drug-related
226
interventions may make an impact, but violent gangsters will not necessarily give up gun usage because the rich financial rewards will always be an important consideration to them. Sentencing is just one small but important aspect relating to the complex issue of drugs, guns and violence.
I want to draw the Minister's attention to the agenda which industry also needs to pursue. According to the Guardian, NCIS claims that half of all the guns recovered in London from crime scenes were converted Brocock airguns. It also points out how easy it is to convert a Brocock airgun into a live firing gun. It is still possible to buy deactivated weapons legally. Sometimes blame is attached to the influence of rap music on the gun culture, but there is little evidence that it is a strong drive in gun crime.
It would be helpful if the Minister would indicate what precise role the police have in preventing and prosecuting those who commit burglary. The conflicting messages from police forces adds to the fear of crime, which is so evident within our communities. It is also necessary to examine with our European partners the need for a Europe-wide strategy to deal with sophisticated eastern European weapons entering European countries.
Sentencing should take into account the pressure on the Prison Service. Over the past decade, we have played up the image of a disorderly and crime-ridden Britain. The solution is often seen to be not only an increase in police numbers but also the need to embark on a massive prison expansion programme. Neither will have a substantial effect on the reduction of crime. We need to move away from the saloon-bar politics of crime and establish research and evidence-based policies.
4.10 p.m.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, every so often, usually propelled by events well covered in the press, an issue comes before Parliament which raises questions of legal or constitutional principle. I believe that today's debate is one such occasion.
Put briefly, while it is the responsibility of the legislature to define and enact what the penalties should be for criminal offences, and it is the responsibility of the police and prosecutors to detect and to charge persons believed to have committed such offences, it is the long-established role of the courts to convict and sentence offenders who are found guilty by due process of law.
The level of penalty imposed will be within a statutory maximum, taking account of precedents in similar cases as well as guidelines laid down by the Court of Appeal and the Lord Chief Justice in order to ensure consistency.
With the exception of the penalty for murder no sentences have traditionally been mandatory; they have been at the discretion of the court within certain limits. That has always been regarded as of fundamental importance. Then came the events of the late 1990s—the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, who was active in another place at the time no doubt remembers

227
them well—namely, the controversy over the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. The measure was introduced by a Conservative Home Secretary, Mr Michael Howard, and originally opposed by the Labour Front Bench. However, soon after Labour came to power in 1997, two out of three novel mandatory sentences were adopted. They were an automatic life sentence for repeat serious, violent and sexual offenders and a seven-year mandatory sentence for third-time drug traffickers. An additional category with a far greater potential impact on the prison population, namely, a three-year minimum sentence of imprisonment for third-time domestic burglars, was held over until after the general election in 1997 and was not brought into force until December 1999. The numbers affected were far larger in that category than in the other two.
Now, once again, what is interpreted by the Government as being the demands of public opinion has led to the threat of a further encroachment on the discretion, indeed on the responsibility, of the criminal courts to punish each convicted offender according to the relative harm which has been done. That is not only wrong in principle; it is likely to be ineffective in practice to attempt to send signals to burglars and other potential offenders by way of legislation. This is a curious idea but one deeply embedded in the minds of some in government and Parliament. It is, as I say, not only wrong in principle but likely to be ineffective in practice. If the intended receiver is not listening, then no message will get through.
Politics and justice have always been uncomfortable bedfellows. As I look around the House I see many who have had distinguished careers in both politics and the administration of justice. They will be aware there is little evidence that policies based on deterrence have much restraining effect on potential offenders, especially the very large number of those under the influence of drink or drugs or both at the time of the offence.
In short, the conclusion must be that the administration of justice and politically inspired initiatives should be kept separate. Each has its proper place in our parliamentary system and in the administration of justice, but to mix them raises false hopes. It also harms the relationship between the executive and the judiciary. What we have read about the clash which has occurred recently is very regrettable. It holds out little chance of producing agreed outcomes.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Stern: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for initiating this debate. I feel reasonably well qualified to talk about this subject today at least from one perspective. While away over Christmas and the New Year, my house in Lambeth in central London was burgled. It was my first experience of being burgled in 12 years in this house and it was a very mild one: there was no damage, nothing broken and only two very small things taken.
228
The important issues for me as a burglary victim were the rallying round of the neighbours, who discovered it and who cleared up the house before I returned, and the Metropolitan Police, who dealt with the matter with courtesy, helpfulness and reassuring realism. They were most impressive.
It is often said that justice for victims equals seeing someone suffer for the crime. For me, and I suspect a great many people, the important aspects of being a burglary victim are not to be left feeling alone and invaded but to be supported and to receive sympathy, with an understanding response from the police and a chance to get back items of sentimental value which have been stolen.
Sentencing is a much less immediate concern. If my burglar were to be apprehended I would sincerely hope that he or she would not be sent to prison. That view arises not from a warm feeling towards the burglar, and neither from sympathy with the social conditions which might have led to the burglary, far from it—should I have been able to meet the burglar I would have made that very clear—but because a rational calculation suggests that for someone who is not deeply into serious and violent crime (my burglar seemed to be a total amateur) a prison sentence is a recipe for turning a small-time opportunist into a candidate for the proposed five-year minimum sentence for carrying a firearm. I shall have more security in future in my house in Lambeth, and more protection, with less prospect of being burgled again, if almost any other course is taken than sending the perpetrator to prison.
If I were to be given a say in sentencing my burglar I would ask, first, for a properly organised scheme of community service, with as many elements included as possible that would tend to awaken conscience and an awareness of the needs of others. Secondly, a meeting should be offered with the victim so that the burglar should hear about the impact of the burglary. I would have been very happy to have met the burglar and told him or her what it was like to he 400 miles away and to have received a phone call at six o'clock in the morning from a neighbour saying that there appeared to be strangers in my house. Thirdly, together with community service and contact with the victim, I would ask for social measures to deal with what is most likely to characterise my burglar—that is probably drug addiction, as the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, mentioned, or some other form of acute social disadvantage. That is what I would choose and, according to international research studies on attitudes to punishment, so would very many other people throughout the world.
Yet prison still carries the argument every time. Why is that? Perhaps it is because the prison sentence is very clear and predictable. The criminal is bundled into the van, unloaded at the prison, strip searched, bathed, interviewed, put into a cell and locked up. He is clearly being punished. If the prison is well resourced, he will absorb £36,539 in the next financial year.

229
The alternative route is so unclear, so unpredictable. It is patchy, spongy, ill-resourced, lacking in confidence, with no clear, persuasive message for the criminals or the public. If anyone wonders what I mean by the word "spongy", the comment by the representative of the probation officers' trade union in today's Independent about the inability of the probation service to take on any more work with burglars is perhaps the best definition of the word.
Research shows that there is much support for the policy set out by the Lord Chancellor on 3rd January that prisons should be used as a last resort and for no longer than necessary. Can we do it? Can we build up ways of dealing with most offenders that are credible and as emotionally satisfying as prison? We certainly can. We could, for example, learn from the Youth Justice Board and set up adult offending teams on the model of the youth offending teams. We could relaunch the community service order as a highly credible and attractive alternative under the strong leadership of someone good at communicating with the public. We could encourage much more local community involvement in the sentencing process for less serious offenders. We could require courts to obtain a pre-sentence report before imposing a prison sentence.
I list those ideas so that I can ask the Minister to consider them and respond to them. I also make the point that we know that such measures would have an effect; we know that they would reduce the use of prison. If they are not used, that is a matter of choice. An ever-increasing prison population is not inevitable, although it will be if every time there is a scare about some type of offence a minimum sentence is proposed for it. It is difficult to see a way out unless the Government take measures radically to redress the imbalance between the credibility and delivery of alternatives to prison and prison itself.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have already spoken, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Henley on introducing what is a topical and very important matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, was able to speak with the advantage—or perhaps I should say disadvantage—of having experienced a recent burglary. I am sure that she will forgive me if, in the few minutes available to me, I take up the two points that my noble friend Lord Henley made on the issue of sentencing.
First, I turn to the matter of firearms. Clearly, the increase in the use of firearms and the carrying of firearms is grave and serious. The Government are anxious to do what they can to deal with the problem. It may be that some of the law in that area should be reconsidered. However, I believe that the Government's immediate reaction in talking about a mandatory five years in prison is a knee-jerk reaction which has not been fully thought through.
230
Will such a sentence be mandatory? At first we were told that it was to be and now I understand that that has been clarified: it was to be mandatory but there will be exceptions. Then on 8th January, as has been said, the Prime Minister in answer to a question in another place said that the five-year mandatory sentence is not yet law but that the Government want it to be. Is the intention still to bring in a five-year mandatory sentence?
I remind the Minister of the present situation. If someone uses a firearm or carries a firearm intending to commit another offence, the maximum penalty is already life imprisonment. If, on the other hand, someone is charged merely with possession of a firearm or carrying a loaded firearm without intent, the punishment is a maximum of seven years or, if tried in a magistrates' court, a maximum of six months' imprisonment.
Is it seriously intended that those different penalties should be replaced by one mandatory sentence of a minimum of five years? Surely that must be wholly out of keeping with a case that is, at the moment, triable summarily in a magistrates' court. If it is intended to be limited to the use of the weapon or the weapon being carried when another offence is committed, the fact that there is a maximum of life imprisonment makes a five-year mandatory sentence of little effect. I believe, unfortunately, that it is an example of this Government speaking loud on crime, but doing very little that will be effective.
I want to make it clear that I am opposed to mandatory sentences. They do not give flexibility to the courts to take account of the different circumstances that may occur. Therefore, they are bound to lead to injustice.
As my noble friend Lord Windlesham has said, I believe that the duty of Parliament is to set the maximum sentence, but that the length of any individual sentence must be a matter for the discretion of the court that has heard the case. I believe that it is vitally important that we retain that distinction in our functions.
I turn to the issue of burglary. I want to ask the Minister whether it is the Government's wish that all those convicted of burglary, even for the first time, should serve short sentences of imprisonment, or do they accept that the Lord Chief Justice was correct to say that at first one should see whether a community sentence would be more appropriate? We know that the prisons are desperately overcrowded; we know that prison to some extent fails to deter; and, in view of the high level of re-offending to which the noble Lord, Lord Corbett of Castle Vale, referred, we know that prison certainly fails to reform.
I do not believe that sentences deter. At the end of the day it is the likelihood of conviction that deters; and the likelihood of conviction depends on the likelihood of being caught. I believe that that is a far graver deterrent than merely serving a short term of imprisonment rather than a community sentence order.

231
At some stage that was the view of the Minister. Perhaps I may quote from an answer that he gave me on 17th July 2002. He said, in relation to the second point that I made in my question,
"First, there need to be more alternatives to prison, and, secondly, sentencers need to be encouraged to consider those where appropriate. I make it clear that all too many short sentences are now passed where an alternative to custody would be better". —[Official Report, 17/7/02; col. 1254.]
Is that still the view of the Minister? When the Lord Chief Justice attempts, through judicial guidance, to give practice to that policy, it appears that the Government denounce their own policy. I hope that we shall have answers to those questions today.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, the first principle, as I understand it, of sentencing is to ensure that the public are adequately protected. It seems to me that that is exactly what the guidelines put at the forefront. The two appellants, McInerney and Keating, received three-and-a-half years imprisonment and three years imprisonment respectively. That was considered by the Court of Appeal to be necessary for the protection of society.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, made it clear that in his guidelines he was not dealing with second-time domestic burglars who commit one of the high level aggravating factors such as threatening a victim. He made it clear that the Court of Appeal accepted the advice of the Sentencing Advisory Panel that in such a case the starting rate should be three years; he made it clear that he was dealing with a burglar whose offence may attract up to 18 months' imprisonment. Only a quarter of that sentence would be served. With a 12 months' sentence he would be released after six months with 90 days' home curfew. The result is that the sentence would be only three months. Three months in prison is quite inadequate to enable the Prison Service to carry out any form of rehabilitation to avoid re-offending.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, compared that with community sentencing, which can provide protection for three years, either by tagging and/or curfew orders, in order to keep the offenders off the street. He said that it is a realistic and serious restraint on the offender's freedom. It is supported by the sanction that if the offender does not comply with the terms of the order, he would be sentenced for the original offence and could expect a custodial sentence. That itself is a deterrent.
The solution produced by the noble and learned Lord in his guidelines would reduce overcrowding in prison. We all know that overcrowding makes the Prison Service quite incapable of carrying out any effective activity with a view to teaching the offender the folly of continuing in his ways.
I concede that I, too, have been the subject of two burglaries in the country. Only in one case was the burglar caught. He was a professional burglar. He was found hiding ultimately in the driveway of a grand house with maps and all kinds of detail of the area. I had the satisfaction of knowing that the burglar used
232
the only escape through the back garden, which was full of stinging nettles. On the other hand, I had the dissatisfaction of learning that he was given a suspended sentence because his sister-in-law was apparently going through a difficult change of life.
I hope that that would no longer happen. I think that the lessons so emphasised by the guidelines have been learned. But, having reached the age of anecdotage, I was reminded of the clamour by some parts of the press during the well-known "Spycatcher" case some 15 years ago. I was one of the three of the majority who imposed an injunction on the media. We said at the end of the case that we could not give, an immediate judgment, but we thought that the parties would like to know the result. So we announced the majority decision and said that we would give our reasons for it shortly.
There was an attack of fury from most of the press. Abuse was heaped on us, even to the extent that a picture of the three forming the majority was published upside down with the phrase, "You Fools", attached to it. In giving my judgment I said:
"I hope that but a tithe of the publicity given to the ill-informed criticisms of the majority decision of your Lordships' House is now accorded to the basis and reasons given for that decision".
Hope springs eternal, but it was not to be.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on this very timely debate. I hope that I am acting correctly. But—for the first time I believe in this House—I offer condolences on behalf of the House to the family of Detective Constable Oake who was murdered in defence of the criminal justice system that we so proudly discuss today.
I was often told as a young police officer that I should not concern myself with the sentencing of convicted people; that that was a matter for the courts. That is easier said than done when one's life is devoted to apprehending criminals. It takes a very detached personality to ignore the fruits or otherwise of one's labours. Having said that, the police should not become obsessive about the disposal and sentencing of convicted prisoners, which in a liberal democracy is a matter for the courts.
We have seen in other less fortunate countries that the police, either as an instrument of government or as misguided representatives of a society racked by crime, have become the investigator, the jury and the executioner. That of course leads to gross injustice and is the reason why the crown prosecution system was established—quite rightly—independently of the police who investigate crime.
The police are the criminal justice system's interface with the public. Any dissatisfaction with any part of the system is often expressed with vigour to the frontline police officer, whether he is the officer in the case, the family liaison officer or the officer on patrol in the streets.

233
So police officers quite naturally take an interest in the disposal of criminal cases, not least because they know that while professional offenders are in prison, they are not carrying on their anti-social activities.
As I have said, the debate today is timely. Many tabloid inches have been given to sentencing policy and to the guidance of recent weeks, much of it critical. But newspapers, as we know, have a great deal of power to communicate without much responsibility.
My view of sentencing is obviously coloured by 35 years of policing, much of it as a detective dealing with crime at the sharp end. So what is my view? It is that a sentence must be just. It should do justice primarily for the victim, who, incidentally, is the only participant in the criminal justice system who is not a volunteer. It should do justice to the community in that it seeks to deter the offender and others who may be similarly minded from committing further crime. I suppose that I am saying that it should have unpleasant consequences because otherwise it will be seen as a reward, and that would have the totally opposite effect to that desired.
But it should also do justice to the offender. By that I mean that it should provide him with the means of avoiding falling into the trap of criminality in the future. That may be by rehabilitation, training, education, drug treatment, counselling and so on. I do not think that there would be a great deal of disagreement between thinking people on those matters.
I was the president of the Police Superintendents' Association in the early 1990s when we campaigned vigorously for an end to "revolving door justice", as it was called, in particular with regard to juveniles who would be arrested time after time by the police and then released by the magistrates, quite simply because there were no secure places to detain them.
The streetwise youngster soon got to know that this was the name of the game. Of course he exploited the system to the full—stealing cars with impunity continually. The police were totally frustrated and the public were in despair. I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, because that gives the lie to the argument which is often trotted out, that the only deterrent is being caught. What follows being caught is equally important. It is the duty of the justice system to provide custodial facilities when they are needed. Otherwise, the system is skewed.
In the north-east of England, where I come from, we spawned ram-raiding, where youths would drive their car into a shop window and escape with as many goods as they could. I remember two tearaways ramming a designer closing shop in Durham and stealing about £800-worth of designer clothing. That provided money for beer and cigarettes for about two weeks. Then Geordie said to his pal, "We need to do another ram raid". His pal, Billy, looked askance and said, "Not bloody likely, last time it cost me £1,000 to get the car repaired". Fortunately, criminals are not always that bright.
234
I am looking at the clock with some trepidation. In conclusion, the increase in firearms crime does not mean that the ban on handguns was not justified. It was not designed to prevent criminal use of firearms but to prevent another Dunblane or Hungerford. That has worked. Firearms offences are fuelled by the easy accessibility of guns in the market-place, mainly from former eastern bloc countries. Those who would legalise drugs that are damaging the nation would presumably argue that because there is a thriving black market in guns they should be legalised as well. That shows what nonsense that argument is.
I welcome the Government's proposals on sentencing. Obviously, the way forward is to stop weapons entering the country at source, if we can, but those found in possession of illegal firearms should be visited with long deterrent sentences. In that sense, prison does and will work.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, in recording my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Henley for initiating this debate, let me say at once that I shall not detain your Lordships for long.
I listened with great care and interest to the recent radio interview given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on a range of subjects. I was especially struck when he said that only 25 per cent of recorded crimes are cleared up by the police and that only a small proportion of that 25 per cent result in a conviction. Against that background, the current debate on sentencing may be less relevant than some people imagine. Surely potential criminals always imagine that they will not be caught and that, even if they are, they are unlikely to be convicted. The figures offered by the noble and learned Lord appear to confirm just that. If there is no prospect or little prospect of being apprehended, the question of sentence—long, short or suspended—ceases to be an important consideration.
Perhaps the way to tackle the wholly unacceptable level of crime—especially offences associated with domestic property and motor vehicles—is to make a much greater effort to solve them. We are told that the Metropolitan Police is several thousand officers under strength. We have all heard the dreadful stories of hopelessly undermanned rural police forces where, if one rings them for assistance, one gets only an answerphone.
We should devote more attention and resources to enabling the police to achieve a much higher clear-up rate than at present. It is for chief constables to say what additional resources they need for that purpose, but I hope that the Government will respond sympathetically to those requirements. If my hypothesis is correct, we should in due course be able to make savings—or at least forgo expenditure—on new prisons, if that is needed to cover the cost.
It may be said that none of us wants to live in a society with police standing on every street corner. Of course I agree with that, but the risk of apprehension is now so low that sentences, however long or severe, do not enter the criminal calculation at all.

235
The Government are fond of setting targets. Perhaps I may suggest just one more: to improve the clear-up rate from 25 per cent to, say, 50 per cent by the end of this Parliament. Nothing would do more to deter criminals and help to reduce the level of crime. Then we can truly leave the question of sentencing to the judiciary.
4.44 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for initiating this timely debate. The main principles of the Halliday report, one of the most comprehensive to be carried out during the past century by the Home Office, have been widely accepted. I am glad to say that the Church of England not only submitted evidence to Halliday but a staff officer from our Board for Social Responsibility was on the external reference group.
One principle in particular is incontrovertible. Punishment should be proportionate to the seriousness of the criminal conduct. That in turn depends on the degree of harmfulness or risk of harmfulness of the criminal offence. Behind that principle lies one of the main reasons for punishment in the first place. It expresses society's moral disapproval of the crime. So my first question is: how far does a prison sentence as such still register that disapproval? It is possible that in the minds of some people prison is simply a matter of doing time. What is needed in our society is a much more widely shared disapproval of crime, leading to a stronger and more consistent sense of shame by perpetrators when a crime has been committed.
That raises the further question of whether it is possible to associate non-custodial sentences more closely with society's disapproval in a way that brings about that sense of shame in the offender. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, emphasised so powerfully, the message of prison is clear for all to see. The message of non-custodial sentences is at present unclear—as she put it, it is spongy.
In principle, I believe that everyone would like to reduce the prison population. Prison is expensive and crowded prisons are not a good environment in which to bring about a change in people's outlook and lifestyle and help them to take their place as respected, contributing members of the community. The problem is that the fear of crime can help to stoke up the rhetoric of punishment—usually interpreted to mean more and longer prison sentences.
So I return to the fundamental issue of how we can bring about in our society a more consistent disapproval of crime, which has the effect of bringing about a sense of shame in those who commit criminal acts. If that disapproval was more consistent in its effect, it might then be associated in a more integrated way with non-custodial sentences, and the call for more and longer prison sentences would not resonate so widely with people who have an understandable fear of crime.
236
If what I am saying is true, it means that society as a whole—especially parents, schools and faith communities, but involving all of us—has a role in changing the climate of opinion so that the concept of moral responsibility is once again accepted a s a foundational norm in every one of our communities. That in turn points to another issue. Fear of crime is real, but is crime in fact rising? Figures from the police indeed show such a rise, but the British Crime Survey, which records people's personal experience of crime, shows a 7 per cent drop in crime and a similar drop in the fear of crime, as the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, pointed out. I understand that it is possible to reconcile those different figures, but my point is that we need to be sparing about using such figures in a way that stokes up the rhetoric of more and more drastic punishments, whether for burglary or for any other offence.
I now turn briefly to sentences connected with the possession of guns. Home Office figures show that firearms, excluding air weapons, were used in 9,974 recorded cases in 2001–02, an increase of 35 per cent on the previous year. In 24 per cent of those offences the firearm was fired. So there is clearly a strong case for society expressing its moral disapproval of the unauthorised possession of such weapons. We certainly do not want to move in the direction of America's gang and gun culture.
However, the United States also provides some positive examples. A number of American cities have introduced successful policies to get guns off the streets. In Boston, for example, street workers— largely, ex-gang members who have gone straight and who want to stop their friends being killed—act as go-betweens between the youths on the streets and the criminal justice system. In South Carolina, guns hotlines have been instituted. Anyone who sees a weapon being flashed around at a school or club can ring the hot-line anonymously. Police response has been quick enough to obtain the weapon, with grounds to at least convict the person for possession.
Most positively of all, in Texas they instituted a Youth Advocate Programme, which hires local people from the same patch as the offenders to supervise them for 30 hours per week—far more than any probation officer could manage. Young people who have been convicted are given an advocate at school, in the court and to help them get a job, and to enjoy themselves safely without fear of being attacked by a rival gang. The programme costs less than one-third of the cost of prison and is three times as effective in stopping the offender. This Youth Advocate Programme is now established in Britain in 11 London boroughs and is already showing good results. It is that kind of programme, together with restorative justice programmes pioneered in the Thames Valley, which can bring hope both of taking crime and the effects of crime seriously and enabling those convicted to change their behaviour.
Sentencing policy for burglary and the possession of firearms, however important, is only one aspect of the problem facing our society. Wider changes in our culture are necessary: quite simply, the acceptance that

237
burglary, the possession of firearms and every other crime is wrong—morally wrong. If those changes could be introduced and non-custodial sentences could be seen more widely—not as a soft option, but as a clear expression of society's disapproval—I believe that the call that arises from time to time for harsher prison sentences would be muted. Together with that, particularly in relation to the possession of firearms, there are other innovative ideas now being put into practice which, if extended, could be really effective in tackling this disturbing phenomenon in our society at its root.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Warne: My Lords, in making my contribution I wish to declare my interest as chairman of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. First, I wish to make a few remarks about the crime rates. It is clear from the most recent British Crime Survey that crime in July 2002 was approximately 7 per cent lower than for the previous year. I read carefully the material presenting the crime statistics last week that was used by Professor Paul Wiles, Director of Research, Development and Statistics at the Home Office. As far as I know, no one is doubting his integrity. The material makes it clear beyond doubt that the risk of becoming a victim of crime now remains historically low—approximately the same as at the time of the first British Crime Survey in 1981.
Professor Wiles' statistical judgment on burglary is that it is currently stable. A visitor to this country last week could be forgiven for not understanding those basic facts from the misleading and mischievous media coverage. On the subject of burglary, perhaps I may give your Lordships the picture on juveniles. The data within the Youth Justice Board shows a similar position to that described more broadly by Professor Wiles. Our self-report surveys of teenagers show breaking and entering lower in 2002 than in 2000—that is the same statistic as data that we are receiving from youth offending teams. Overall, the picture set out in our annual review to Parliament is that youth crime is not spiralling out of control.
In that context, it is hard to understand rationally why so many people became so excited about the guidelines on sentencing for burglary that were issued by the Lord Chief Justice. Burglary is not spiralling out of control. The guidelines did nothing to reduce protection of the public. In suggesting that effective community penalties for unaggravated burglary by non-persistent offenders was the right starting point for sentences, it seems to me that the Lord Chief Justice said something rather unexceptional.
The emphasis in the judgment given on the McInerney and Keating appeals in December 2002, in relation to community penalties, is heavily qualified in that the sentence has to be an effective punishment and must offer action on the part of the Probation Service to tackle criminal behaviour.
238
Those caveats related to adults. For juveniles the judgment endorsed the use of community penalties more strongly. It continued:
"The Youth Justice Board is spearheading effective punishment in the community and it is important that where appropriate juvenile offenders are dealt with in the Youth Court and not the Crown Court".
That is eminently sensible now that we have effective community penalties that are robust and effective—contrary to some popular belief—and, in particular, the Intensive Surveillance and Supervision Programme. Those community penalties do change the offending patterns of many young offenders.
The critical issue here is the credibility and availability of community penalties. Certainly, as regards juveniles the community penalties are credible and being used well by the courts. For example, the Intensive Surveillance and Supervision Programme has been designed as a robust community penalty for persistent and more serious offenders. It is a six-month programme with high levels of community-based surveillance, including tagging, with a sustained focus on tackling risk factors associated with offending and individually tailored plans for changing behaviour. The costs are far less than anything offered by the Prison Service. In terms of cost effectiveness, those programmes are a far better use of public money than short periods in custody. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, said, there are lessons to be drawn from that experience for adult offenders.
It is easy to underestimate the pressures on the Probation Service and the resources needed to bolster the credibility of community penalties. However, it would be wise for Conservative critics of the Government to dwell a little on their own record on the Probation Service before attacking the Government. I was personally involved in helping to design the new probation qualification for the Probation Service after the 1997 election, following the effective abolition of their professional qualification by the last Conservative Home Secretary, who put nothing in its place. That was hardly a helpful contribution to the recruitment of staff to the Probation Service and for encouraging high morale.
Since the early 1990s, somehow we have placed ourselves on an escalator towards a higher and higher prison population that consumes more and more resources. We have an expanded prison estate that is struggling to maintain standards of decency and maintain regimes and resettlement programmes that offer offenders the prospect of change. Continuing to raise sentence thresholds and ceilings for whole classes of offences will not help us to get off this escalator; nor will excessive fettering of sentencer's discretion in individual cases.
The juvenile sector has shown a way of change that needs to be applied to other offenders—particularly young adults and women. While I understand the case for deterrence in sentencing for firearms, I hope that we shall not be panicked or seduced further along the path of excessive minimum sentences irrespective of individual circumstances. That is particularly important in the area of juveniles where we have long

239
had a situation where the sentencing structure is very different from that for adults—and for very good reason. I hope that that will remain the case unless there is a sound evidential basis for not doing so.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow a noble Lord who holds such important responsibilities. I agree with much of what he said, though not quite with all. I join also in the expressions of gratitude for my noble friend Lord Henley that have already been made. He has allowed us to explore an area of sentencing policy that is regrettably a scene of confusion, and even of turmoil.
I am afraid that Ministers are largely responsible for the confusion. My noble friend dealt tellingly with that. For example, one day there will be a five-year mandatory sentence for burglary; the next day there will not be. A few days later, there will be again. I offer another example: the Lord Chief Justice, who has already been alluded to, has been supported by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—quite rightly because he is head of the judiciary. But the next day the Lord Chief Justice escapes blame from the Home Secretary—if I may say, on the "Today" programme—solely on the grounds that,
"he is not a politician".
It is fairly clear where that was intended to leave the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, even before briefing from No. 10 was brought into the equation.
That is a sorry state of affairs. After all, it is the public who suffer the crimes which are recorded in these cold statistics. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, has said, the public are the only people in the criminal justice scene who are not volunteers. It is baffling to the public and unfair to the judges who always get the blame. I do not think that we should altogether neglect the concept of justice for judges.
In the time available, I want to focus on the discretion that is vested by our system in the judges when sentencing and the use that their leader, the Lord Chief Justice, has recently guided them to make of it.
It is of course elementary that within the criminal justice system the judges are constrained by whatever parameters that Parliament sees fit to place upon their powers, even if they are as impracticable as mandatory sentences, for example.
It is no less elementary that within these parameters it is their duty to exercise their discretion. All of this has been explained better than I could hope to do by my noble friends Lord Windlesham and Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. It would not be necessary to say any of this if it were not for the hot water that the Lord Chief Justice got into for giving carefully considered guidance in the Court of Appeal on the sentencing of burglars and explaining that judgment later.
The judgment was given on 19th December in a case called McInerney, which has already been referred to. It was a long judgment which few, if any, adverse commentators seemed to have thought necessary to
240
read. I hope that the Lord Chief Justice's statement yesterday will encourage them to do so. It proposed a switch away from short custodial sentences for certain categories of burglars towards punishment in the community.
To be ultra-fair, I. think that the Home Secretary was as much complaining about the opportunity that the Lord Chief Justice has taken to let the public understand the court's thinking in that judgment. However, especially these days, it is important that the public should not feel excluded from the thinking of the senior judges, otherwise the judges would be criticised for Olympian arrogance. Communication is now part of the Lord Chief Justice's job.
The public are not as superficial as the editors of certain tabloids seem to suppose and certainly encourage them to be—tabloids of which No. 10 regrettably seems to be in such fear.
The judgment records a research finding— and this is interesting—by the Sentencing Advisory Panel that,
"people think that sentences … are far too soft, [but] … when asked what sentence should be imposed (burglary scenario being used as the test), they often propose a sentence less than that actually imposed".
Absolutely central to the exercise of judicial discretion in sentencing must surely be an understanding of the overcrowded state of prisons. As the judgment itself records, it has resulted in the extensive use of executive release from prison for those sentenced to four years or less—executive, not judicial, not statutory remission for good conduct, but executive because it is convenient to let somebody out sooner than a court has said that he should be. That does not do very much for the rule of law.
It is worth considering a few statistics about overcrowding. The prison population at the end of June last year was 11 per cent higher than the certified normal accommodation. At 71,220, the excess was no less than 7,030 prisoners. Since then, it has become worse and the population is probably now around 72,500, with around 400 prisoners being held in police cells each night.
In McInerney, the court stated that as a result of the present system being so grossly overcrowded, the Prison Service could not achieve the limited assistance that could otherwise be provided during a short sentence. Meanwhile, there was positive evidence emerging as to what could be achieved by punishment in the community. It made clear, with the Lord Chief Justice giving the judgment, that its concern was to give not less, but greater protection to the public.
This has to be taken a good deal more seriously than a lot of the media comment has done. The fact of overcrowding in prisons is a perfectly proper factor for judges to take into account. I hope that the Home Secretary and his colleagues, rather than grumble about that use of their discretion, will reflect on their failure to alleviate overcrowding and that they will forbear from criticising the judges.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I start with burglary. There are two points here. First, among all the confusing and sometimes conflicting statistics which are put before us, one thing is absolutely clear: there has been a steady, indeed dramatic, fall in all kinds of domestic burglary since 1995. The figures are set out in table 4.02 of the main crime survey volume. They were referred to as being equivalent to a decline of 39 per cent by the noble Lord.
What is the reason for this very welcome trend? In another place on Monday, it was suggested that it might have something to do with the sentencing policies pursued by the Home Secretary in a previous administration. I find that very difficult to believe. I am not a criminologist myself, but if we think that there is any direct connection between the prevalence of particular crimes and the sentencing level for those crimes, we deceive ourselves.
The causes for the rise or fall in any particular crime lie far deeper than that. Here, I find myself much nearer to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, than I do to the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie. It was thought by many that the abolition of the death penalty, for example, might lead to a large increase in murder. It did nothing of the kind.
The welcome decline in domestic burglary has nothing whatever to do with whether or not first-time or second-time burglars are sent to jail. There is not the slightest reason to believe that if we tilt the balance in favour of the community sentence, which the Lord Chief Justice tried to do, it would lead to any appreciable increase in domestic burglary.
The second point, made also very frequently today, is that prisons are grossly overcrowded—we all know that. Even if we had more prisons, so that all prisoners could be contained properly, a prison population of 72,500 is far too high. Faced with the overcrowding, we all believe that prisons should be reserved for those who commit the more serious offences of violence, sexual assault and so on. That is what we always say. However, one cannot have more serious offences unless one accepts that there are some offences which are less serious, and the generality of burglary is less serious. Of course, there are very serious crimes of burglary, but the generality of burglaries, the kind of burglaries which are dealt with by magistrates rather than on an indictment, are much less serious than that.
This was the only real distinction which the Lord Chief Justice was seeking to make. There is an important distinction. He said, as I understood it, that in the case of first-time and maybe second-time burglars, unless the burglary was so serious that there was no alternative but to send the burglar to prison, a community service order was acceptable.
Like most judges, I have spent many hours talking to groups of magistrates. I always used to say that the most important single decision that any criminal court has to make is the decision to send a man to prison for the first time. I entirely support the line which the Lord Chief Justice has taken.
242
On gun crime, again, there are two points. Do we need a new initiative? I suggest not. I take it that we are dealing with the crime of carrying a loaded firearm in public under Section 19 of the Firearms Act. The maximum sentence, already pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, is six months in summary proceedings and seven years on indictment. It would be very odd to have a crime for which the maximum sentence was seven years and the minimum sentence was five years.
However, putting that to one side, do we need this new initiative? No. I accept that there is a serious problem of gun crime in certain parts of the country, but judges are used to dealing with problems of that kind. We all remember the sentence imposed by Mr Justice Salmon in the aftermath of the Notting Hill riots. Courts will always take into account the prevalence of a particular crime in a particular locality, and they will always take into account any concern that the public may feel on that score.
That was laid down as a principle by Lord Chief Justice Taylor in the case of Cunningham in 1993 and probably long before. It is an obvious principle and, in its light, I suggest that we should leave this matter to the judges and not let the politicians interfere.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, while I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, in his remarks about firearms, I should say a word in the defence of my old boss, the former Home Secretary, Michael Howard. If the consequence of his actions in regard to burglars was that they spent longer in prison, they would not be able to burgle people's houses while they were in prison. One would therefore expect the incidence of burglaries to fall, which is precisely what has happened.
I wish to address my remarks to the issue of firearms legislation. I have not said anything about this in public before, but I was Secretary of State at the time of the Dunblane murders, which took place in the constituency for which I was the MP. When I came to this House, a number of people indicated their disapproval of what they saw as a knee-jerk reaction to the Dunblane events in the legislation we passed which banned handguns down to 22 calibre. We tried to proceed on the basis of a political consensus but, for understandable reasons—it was an election year—the Labour Party went one step further and decided to go for a total ban. I have to say, in all honesty, that had I been re-elected I would have supported a total ban. I believe that it was the right thing to do.
When I was taken into the school gym by the police, the children were still where they had fallen. It was a scene of unbelievable carnage. I cannot describe my reactions save to say this. The man who had committed the offence was a regular attender at my constituency surgeries—he was one of my persistent correspondents—and all I could think of was the glib way in which I had denounced those who had suggested after Hungerford that we should ban handguns. I took the view that hard cases make bad

243
law and that it would be unreasonable to do so, but I have no doubt whatever that had we banned handguns then, this would not have happened. I believe therefore that it was the right thing to do.
The ban caused huge offence to the shooting community and enormous cost to the taxpayer, I believe approaching £100 million. Many in the shooting community argued that it was the wrong thing to do because it did not address the problem of people who owned guns illegally. In all conscience, I have to say now that they were right. I do not say that we were wrong to impose a ban, but they were right to point out that we were not addressing the major problem.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford pointed out, the figures show that the incidence of gun crime has doubled during the period the Government have been in power since 1997, with a slight dip in the years 1997 and 1998. On any given day in England and Wales there are seven offences involving the firing of guns. Weapons are fired seven days a week, seven times every day.
I look to the Government for a solution to the essential problem of the illegal use of guns. What is being proposed was on the list of suggested solutions produced by Home Office officials at the time of the Cullen report, when we looked at every aspect of the problem. They were rejected for a number of reasons, which we do not have time to discuss today.
The move towards banning replica guns may help in incidents where the police are not sure whether criminals are carrying real firearms, and may provide some degree of protection for the criminal. But if we ban replica guns on the grounds that replica guns can be converted, we will be banning something which is already illegal. A weapon which has been converted for use is already illegal. This is already happening. The problem lies in enforcement. As many noble Lords have said, this is about securing convictions and enforcement of the existing law; it is not about creating additional laws.
Equally, if there is a demand for replica weapons and we reduce the supply, are we not in danger of increasing the demand for the weapons which are coming from Eastern Europe and other countries and which are capable of doing serious and lasting damage?
As to the issue of a minimum five-year sentence—I am delighted to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in his place—I must confess that I am a convert. When I was Secretary of State I thought mandatory sentences were a great idea because I was fed up with the way in which judges did not seem to be responding to public opinion. I was persuaded that sentencing guidelines were the appropriate way forward and that we had to have discretion. The Government seem to be making some of the same mistakes which previous governments have made and which do not deliver results.
As my noble friend Lord Trefgarne said, the issue is about bringing criminals to justice. It is not a debate about how long the sentence should be if someone is
244
carrying an illegal weapon; it is a debate about how we make sure that such people are put behind bars in the first place.
I appreciate that there is not a great deal of time for this debate. I do not wish to make any party points against the Government—these are complicated issues which are particularly difficult to discuss in the context of the kind of press that we enjoy in this country—but I believe that we should be looking long and hard at the gun culture which is being created in this country. What I would describe as a "screen and rap" culture is dominating our youngsters, and we should ask ourselves why it is that so many disaffected youngsters in inner-city communities now see carrying a gun in the same way as a previous generation saw trainers and other fashion accessories—as something they had to have. There is a breakdown in respect for individuals and law and order, and a culture of violence— which is fed by many other aspects of the media—which we need to address in a sensible way. So far the proposals coming from the Government singularly fail to address the problem.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I wonder how mar y of your Lordships have seen the brilliant new film, "God's City", about the terrifying level of gun culture in the cities of Brazil. Although in Britain we are still far from that level there is no doubt that we are moving in that direction. I certainly urge the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to see that film if he has not already done so.
The growth of a gun culture in Britain is alien to British tradition and deeply offensive to the great majority of voters. Its growth is highlighted by the growing number of armed policemen on our streets and the suspicion that in certain areas the police are reluctant to tackle the ruthless armed criminal gangs, usually referred to in the press as the "Yardies".
Indeed, the handling of the siege in Hackney is questionable. The record length of the siege is not a record of which to be proud, and the outcome can give no comfort or reassurance to anyone.
To carry an illegal firearm is a serious matter; to threaten anyone with one is doubly so; and to fire shots at public or police is wholly unacceptable. Unless there are real reasons to believe that a gunman is a certifiable lunatic, I do not believe that once a criminal shoots at anyone, showing beyond dispute that he is willing to kill, there should be inhibitions about shooting him dead. It is quite wrong that the police should put their own or anyone else's life in danger in such circumstances. I suspect that the law may need changing to give the police full cover for using lethal force in response to a criminal actually shooting at anyone.
In the matter of guns on the street, the Home Office has, in my view, been culpably dismal in failing to do what is needed. I follow the arguments advanced by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. What is needed is not to flood the prisons with those found carrying guns but to get guns off the streets. As the

245
right reverend Prelate said, this has worked well in America. Since 1994, 90,000 guns have been seized on the streets of New York and shootings have fallen by 74 per cent. New York is now a much safer city.
On 12th March last year, in an amendment to the Police Reform Bill, I put forward a specific proposal for action to help to get guns off the streets. It would have given the police powers to seal off any area where they thought that people might be carrying guns and to sweep everyone in that area with metal detectors and body searches. The area might be a street, part of a street, a club or the area outside it, a cinema, a train or a station platform.
I received support for the idea from all sides of the House. However, the unfortunate noble Lord, Lord Bassam, was put up by the Home Office to reject it. Of course, I was not surprised. The immediate reaction of the Home Office tends to be to reject any idea which is not its own.
After all, Parliament passed Section 39 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 requiring a national register of persons who have applied for, or been granted, a shotgun or firearms certificate. Five years later, after a prolonged, and no doubt to Home Office officials an amusing, game of "Yes, Minister"—which included ignoring a severe rebuke in the year 2000 from the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, then presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett—we still have no register.
Indeed, only last week, on 9th January, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, signed a Written Answer to a Question from my noble friend Lady Blatch asking when the register would become fully operational. His answer was pure, bureaucratic gibberish, and the noble and learned Lord should be ashamed of signing it. Perhaps I may read one sentence:
"The Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO) is currently considering the responses to the notice it issued seeking non-binding expressions of interest for a retender". —[Official Report, 9/1/03; col. WA 225.]
That is after five years—yes, years.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, was asked to say that the powers that currently existed were "effective for the purpose", and:
"we believe we have got it about right".
Try telling that to the good citizens of Hackney or Birmingham.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, wrote to me on 15th April rejecting my suggestion on the basis that the police did not think it necessary. I wonder whether that is still their view. He stated:
"The only statutory power to cordon off an area is that under section 33 of the Terrorism Act 2000 which allows an officer of at least superintendent rank to designate an area as a cordoned area where he considers it expedient for the purposes of a terrorist investigation".
The Home Office says:
"We have serious concerns on the practicalities of sealing off an area to conduct a sweep for the illegal carrying of firearms".
246
These concerns seem to be based on the resources needed, the impact on local communities and disproportionality. I suspect that the word "disproportionate" reflects the need, which of course I accept, to balance effective policing with the need to avoid inflaming race relations. All I can say is that the growth of gun warfare on the streets of our cities is one of the major poisons in race relations.
Recent events have therefore convinced me that powers, at least equivalent to those under Section 33 of the Terrorism Act, are needed. The sort of ad hoc sweeps that I propose would be very useful in reassuring the public and would result in many guns being removed. I hope that the Government will include such a provision in their forthcoming legislation.
The noble and learned Lord knows that I am in many areas a supporter of what the Government are trying to do. The Chancellor has done his best to build on the success of the Thatcherite economic revolution. The Government are standing up against the absurd wage claims of the firemen. The Prime Minister speaks loud and clear in the world for Britain's interests. The Home Secretary has many sound instincts and aspirations on law and order, as had his predecessor. But what we need now is action, not words. If the Government are judged by the electorate to have failed in these matters, they will suffer severely at the next election.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, in expressing gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for introducing this debate, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that it raises important constitutional considerations.
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, referred to the economy. Perhaps the most important decision taken by the Labour Government was to declare the Bank of England independent of political interference, thereby preventing a pre-election boom for electoral advantage. That was an innovation.
But in the field of criminal justice, sentencing has always been in the hands of independent experts, professional judges and magistrates. The function of Parliament is to set maximum sentences, and to provide the tools, the range of penalties, whether custodial or non-custodial, which an individual judge can exercise with regard to the defendant who is before him; and exercise his judgment, insulated from the popular concerns of the moment and without any interest in electoral advantage.
It need not necessarily be so. In the United States, judges in 38 states are elected; they are directly responsible to their electorate and move by public opinion. But that is not the British way. Here, we believe in judicial independence, which secures continuity, regardless of a change of Home Secretary or of a government, consistency, and proportionality.
As for continuity, I well recall a sentencing conference in Cardiff in the late 1980s, when the Home Secretary was minded to promote non-custodial

247
sentences and the very gallant Lord Justice, who had a long connection with the Rugby Union addressed us, and said: "Now, listen, boys, if you think the so-and-so should go to prison, you send him there. Don't listen to this stuff from the Home Office. We'll back you in the Court of Appeal". It was an exhortation redolent of the changing-room before a match, but it emphasised the independence of the judiciary from political control.
As for consistency, judges have long experience. They have the opportunity to confer with colleagues; they have judicial guidelines; they have their "bible", Thomas on Sentencing—no relation.
When it comes to proportionality, judges have, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, said, an overview of the hierarchy of crime, of placing the particular offence with which a person is charged in its proper perspective.
Victims do not have that overview. Their hurt is unique to themselves. Many victims and their families who attend the courts are later to be seen on television complaining about the leniency of the sentence that the judge has passed in a particular case. Victims always think that sentences are lenient. It was interesting to see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in his capacity as a victim took that view of the sentence passed in the case to which he referred.
Reports in the media foster a climate of distrust in the judicial body. Consequently, there comes about a popular demand for higher penalties. People do not appreciate the larger picture. In particular, they do not realise the value and effectiveness of community penalties, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Corbett. 'The effects are not properly reported.
Furthermore, people tend to believe that the deterrent benefits of prison are far greater than the statistics show to be the case. Politicians are tempted to latch on to this feeling and to announce from time to time headline grabbing initiatives. There, the party political battle begins, with each side blaming the other.
Turning to guns, the gun culture is not new. Some five or six years ago, I was engaged in a case deriving from a club in the neighbourhood where the recent tragic events in Birmingham took place. A young man trod on the foot of another young man as he went to the bar. He was challenged to a fight outside. When the challenger raised his fists, the man who had trodden on the other's toes produced a gun and casually shot him. The only witness was subsequently found shot in his flat. That happened five or six years ago. The incident barely made the national news. It was regarded as just another Yardie killing.
At that time, the Government were obsessed with "three strikes and you're out" mandatory sentencing. The history of that policy is revealing about how politics can mingle with sentencing. In 1994, a victim of crime, a photographer by occupation, placed on the ballot in California Initiative 184 for "three strikes and you're out". The Republican governor, who faced the possibility that he would not be re-elected, then introduced a Bill putting that policy forward into the
248
Democrat-controlled legislature. The Democrats were not going to be less tough than the governor just before the election. So they pushed through the proposal for "three strikes and you're out". That meant that on the third conviction for an offence as minor as domestic burglary a person's sentence would range from 25 years to life, with no reduction. The governor then campaigned on the further proposal of "one strike equals life imprisonment" for sexual offences. When he was eventually re-elected, of course, the proposal was dropped. That illustrates politics using the sentencing system to try to gain electoral advantage.
A study published in 2001 by the Oxford University Press, carried out by Franklin Zimring and others, concluded that the "three strikes and you're out" proposal in California had no effect on second offending. It found no more than "weak evidence of marginal deterrence" on third offending. It was pure politics. I welcome the conversion of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, from mandatory sentencing to the more traditional view.
We have the highest proportion of prisoners in Europe; so there is no sign that the judiciary has failed to respond to public concern about crime. There are conflicting statistics. On the one hand, the Government use Home Office statistics showing increases in robbery, burglary, drug offences and gun crime to justify driving up sentencing levels; on the other, they quote the British Crime Survey finding of a 27 per cent decrease in crime as proof of their strategy's success. Why, if crime is decreasing, are we trying to increase the number sent to prison and: sentence terms? Why is it necessary to take increasingly punitive measures?
The Criminal Justice Bill proposes a sentencing guidelines council, which would have much closer political control than the Court of Appeal in producing sentencing guidelines. Would the new council, which will be closer to politicians than the Court of Appeal, reduce sentencing norms? I very much doubt it. Mr Letwin, on behalf of the Conservative Opposition in another place, is calling for Parliament to take power to set guidelines to indicate the norm, not maximum sentences. That opens the possibility of political interference.
Noble Lords on all sides of the House have said today that the prison estate is ready to burst. There is a danger of an explosion of violence in overcrowded prison conditions. That is a concern of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, who was responsible for the investigations into prison conditions in Manchester. In April last year, I was in the Royal Jail at Frederick Street, Port of Spain in Trinidad, which was built in 1860 to accommodate 250 escaped indentured labourers and now holds 800 prisoners, more than 100 of whom are on death row. The genial but very perceptive and concerned governor, Mr Roberts, said he was frustrated because the prison had good rehabilitative programmes to put into effect but could not do so because of the pressure of numbers. He reflected the precise problem we have here.

249
We all agree that a core of dangerous people must be locked up. The rest are locked up for excessive periods; they are fed and clothed; they have nothing to do; they have no need to think or take a decision; their conduct is never challenged; and they are then dumped back into society. We wring our hands about the reconviction rate. We want a clear political lead from the very top. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, said, we need a clear persuasive message to convey to the public: confidence in judges; the advantages of non-custodial sentences; how the prison population can be reduced; the provision of programmes to prisoners within those prisons; and resources. The greatest success of this Government in criminal justice has been the Youth Justice Board under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Warner. The criminal justice system requires more such properly resourced initiatives.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Henley for bringing his very timely Motion before the House. It occasioned some distinguished and very learned speeches, including his own. Mine is strictly a layman's viewpoint. I hope that there is still room for such views in a specialised debate such as this.
My first difficulty is with the crime figures. I am glad to see that I am not alone. The Times, too, was confused last Friday and began its first leader with this remarkable sentence:
"The Home Office yesterday announced that in the year ending in September 2002 crime rose by … 9 per cent, that it rose by only 2 per cent and that it fell by 7 per cent".
It gave similarly variable figures for domestic burglary—up 5 per cent and down 7 per cent—concluding that,
"the announcement was hopelessly and intentionally confusing".
The Sunday Times columnist Minette Marin described it as, "confusion worse confounded".
The Home Office has certainly fiddled with the way in which crime figures are calculated. I am told that recorded crime is now as defined by the victim; and if there is more than one offence, they are counted as a multiple incident. That produced the 9 per cent increase. On the same day, the British Crime Survey recorded a 7 per cent fall. But it, too, has its shortcomings. For example, it does not include crime committed on housing estates or against under 16 year-olds. Be that as it may, the Home Office pitched for the 2 per cent difference as the likely increase.
That is a meaningless indicator. We should have better and more useful means of detecting trends in criminal behaviour as they develop to assist the police in tackling crime. That seems a fundamental requirement in the battle against crime. I hope that the noble and learned Lord agrees with me.
As things stand, we are bound to accept the worst case scenario presented by these figures. The 5 per cent increase in domestic burglaries, for example, may well be the outcome of the erosion of the tougher stance
250
adopted in earlier years, as described by my noble friend Lord Windlesham. The publicity surrounding the guideline judgment by the Lord Chief Justice in McInerney, with the emphasis on community sentences for first and second-time offenders in low-level burglary cases, sent the wrong message at the wrong time to would-be criminals, if they listen, and certainly to the public.
Yesterday, the Lord Chief Justice quite rightly felt obliged to revisit his guidelines and reassert the context. I have read the judgment, lengthy as it is. It states:
"Domestic burglary is, and always has been regarded as a very serious offence".
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor appears to have overlooked that point in his much quoted saying of the week. He said that he did not,
"accept that people are disturbed at first time burglars or even second time burglars where there are no aggravated elements in the burglary, not going to prison".
I think that he could have done with the assistance of a spin doctor in formulating that sentence.
It may be that the view of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was supported by research into public attitudes, but I cannot find that research. I certainly could not find it in the research by the sentencing panel advising the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. The final sentence of the panel's very interesting conclusion states:
"this study has shown that burglary is regarded as a serious crime and that the public believes that sentencing should reflect this seriousness".
The resulting furore has, of course, placed a question mark over the way in which guideline judgments are prepared. Surely the Government's own proposal in the Criminal Justice Bill—that there should be a sentencing guidelines council to cover a wide range of criminal offences, and some parliamentary involvement through the Home Affairs Committee—tends to confirm that the Government share these doubts about the efficacy of the existing system. My own party is pressing for more parliamentary scrutiny. On Monday, in the other place, the Home Secretary indicated that he was mulling over the points made to him. There is clearly a need to respond to public concern. Let us not forget that the Audit Commission found that half the public are not satisfied that the criminal justice system is effective in bringing offenders to justice.
There is no disputing the fact that sentencing policy is being heavily influenced by overcrowding in the prison system and the expectation of a further increase in the prison population. The Government's own projection is that in the next six years the prison population will increase from its current 72,500 to about 100,000, and that does not even take into account the effect of the Bills currently before Parliament. I think that the Lord Chief Justice was absolutely right to say that overcrowding,
"is a cancer eating at the ability of the Prison Service to deliver".

251
The reconviction rate among released prisoners—58 per cent within two years; and 72 per cent among 18 to 20-year-old male prisoners—confirms the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf.
Whether it is right that sentencing policy should be dictated to the extent that it is by prison overcrowding is highly debatable. Prison does appear to have a deterrent effect, particularly on first-timers, compared with community sentences. As I understand it, however, there are some doubts about that. I should be very grateful if the Minister would clear that up. Does prison have that deterrent effect on first-timers?
I recognise the practical imperatives of the present prison overcrowding. However, more consideration could be given to the new prison building alternative. I understand that the Government are building two new prisons. I would rather see that than a softer approach to crime and punishment which only encourages crime and may prove more costly over time.
With regard to community-based sentences, I agree with the view expressed by the Metropolitan Police in their response to the White Paper Justice for All—that unless these,
"sentences have credibility and authority, then the entire system may fail in its stated purpose and the needs of communities and those who require rehabilitation will not be met".
I think that that was the point made also by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern.
The police are at the sharp end and facing a situation in which substantial numbers of people,
"fail to answer summons, fail to attend court, do not pay their fines, do not complete community service orders or drug testing orders".
That is the daily reality confronting them. To complicate the situation further, I am told that there is a strike brewing, if not threatening in the probation service. Costly as prison may be to the taxpayer, I am not at all certain that a properly supervised and truly effective community sentencing system would be cheaper in the long run.
The alarming 35 per cent increase in gun crime in one year, the 46 per cent increase in handgun crime, and the recent gang shooting of four young women in Birmingham have certainly roused the nation to a high pitch of awareness of the dangers of a gun culture that appears to be the offshoot of a drug culture of which we are already painfully aware. Did the Government not see that coming? There were plenty of warnings early last year and, as we have heard today, gun crime has been increasing for some time. The announcement of a mandatory five-year sentence for illegal possession has quickly and rightly been made subject to judges' discretion. Again, however, the impression is of a hasty and ill thought out reaction by the Government.
What really worries me is that we seem to be in danger of going off at a tangent. We talk about rap music, air guns, replicas and an amnesty when we should be more concerned with vicious and violent drug gangs, Uzi submachine guns and firearms smuggled from the Balkans and elsewhere to a comparatively low-price and easily accessible market.
252
Air pistols can, of course, be adapted to shoot bullets, replicas can be reactivated, and so on. What I am saying is that the whole issue needs a considered and comprehensive rather than a knee-jerk approach. We should learn a lesson from the legislation that followed Dunblane, which, as my noble friend Lord Forsyth said, has done nothing to reduce the trade in illegal weapons.
Crime and the causes of crime continue to cause the public grave concern, as does the Government's apparent inability to provide a strong, coherent strategy to alleviate these problems. I have seen the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, on various television programmes and heard him on radio. He seems to pursue a more robust line than some of his colleagues. I hope that he will give a robust answer to this debate.
5.48 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords. I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on procuring this topical debate, and I welcome the opportunity to set out the Government's position on sentencing. I also join my noble friend Lord Mackenzie in sending most sincere condolences to the family of Detective Constable Oake, who died yesterday in Manchester. I express my strong support for the Greater Manchester police. The trauma which they endured yesterday demonstrates to the whole House the dangers that police officers such as Detective Constable Oake face in fighting dangerous criminals and crime.
I should like to make three preliminary points. First, there are inevitably difficult issues in relation to crime. For example, as everyone knows, it is difficult to measure the precise level of crime. People should not, as some noble Lords have, confuse the difficulty of identifying the precise level of crime with confusion itself. One cannot make difficult issues go away. One has to face up to the difficulty of some of those issues.
Secondly, on the question of who is in charge of sentencing policy, the Government are clear that it is a matter for the Home Office, as it has always been. Judges are a matter for the Lord Chancellor, in so far as anybody is responsible for them—because they are, of course, independent. The two departments must work closely together in formulating policy.
Thirdly, I strongly repudiate the idea that there have been mixed messages about the position on these matters. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for giving me the opportunity to mention that point. As an influential member of his party, I hope that he will speak to his right honourable friend Mr Oliver Letwin, who in an interview with the Independent on 10th December or thereabouts expressed his strong support for the judgment on guidelines issued by the Lord Chief Justice. A few days ago, he said that his support has now been withdrawn from the Lord Chief Justice's guidelines judgment. He said that he was wrong when he gave the Lord Chief Justice support and that a tougher line was required. Therefore, as far

253
as mixed messages are concerned, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, might look to his own home first before making the points that he made about us.
I strongly endorse the comments of those noble Lords who say that sentencing must be considered on a long-term and well thought-out basis. It is important that any changes made to sentencing are made after proper consultation and after the ability has been given to consider the issue overall. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford said in his telling remarks, Mr Halliday, formerly a senior civil servant in the Home Office, produced a report during last year that made radical well thought-out proposals on the reform of sentencing. Those proposals were not produced in the heat of the moment but were well researched and prepared and widely consulted on.
The Government have broadly adopted those principles of sentencing in the White Paper produced in July 2002, and reflected in the Criminal Justice Bill published in the earlier part of last autumn. We are dealing with a series of well thought-out proposals, which are not remotely knee-jerk and do not consider only one bit of the situation but look right across the piece.
I also make clear that the proposals do not for a moment undermine the basic principle that a judge must act independently on individual cases to decide what an appropriate sentence would be, based on the facts. Nobody would dispute the proposition advanced on all sides of this House that the range of offenders and offences is wide and each case must be considered on its individual facts.
Having said all that, it is plain that guidelines are essential, as the judiciary has accepted for many years. Guidelines are important for ensuring consistency, proportionality and fairness in the passing of sentences. As Mr Halliday suggested, and the Government have accepted, there should be a process whereby guidelines can be promulgated. That should be based not only on argument in an individual case by counsel and decided on by judges without further assistance. I know that judges share that view.
As an approach to preparing guidelines, the sentencing advisory panel has been established. It gives advice regularly on various types of offences and offender situations. As noble Lords have said, the sentencing advisory panel gave extensive, well thought-out and well consulted advice to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division before it gave guidelines on burglary. We wish to expand on that, to continue the role of the sentencing advisory panel, and for a sentencing guidelines council to produce guidelines. We want those guidelines to be widely consulted on and published in draft. We want Parliament and the Secretary of State to have a role in determining the guidelines. There must be a combination of Parliament and judges setting the guidelines, with the judges ultimately deciding, entirely independently, on individual cases.
254
That is the correct approach, and it is the approach reflected in the Criminal Justice Bill that is currently passing through the Commons. It represents no infringement of the individual judge's right to decide on the appropriate decision in the individual case.
When the sentencing guidelines council is up and running, it will produce guidelines covering all the significant offences. It will also deal with the principles that will apply on sentencing. The Bill sets out what the principles of sentencing should be: punishment, crime reduction, protection of the public and reparation by offenders to victims. For the first time, a statutory purpose is being defined in relation to sentencing.
We have rightly focused on sentencing in this debate, because that is the issue on which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, quite properly focused. However, one should not regard the issue of dealing with crime as an either/or. One should plainly address the causes of crime by addressing issues such as health, education and the culture of particular communities in which crime thrives. We must support families and ensure that jobs are available for those who might otherwise go into crime. As the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said, we must also address the issue of how to bring more cases to justice. That means more arrests and more convictions of the guilty through the criminal justice system.
One should address the question of sentencing as well. Sentencing that is effective in dealing with crime, in relation to punishment, reparation, reducing reoffending and providing public protection, is one part of the picture. However, with the greatest respect, noble Lords are wrong to treat the situation as either/or. We need to address the causes of crime, make the criminal justice system better and improve on the numbers of people arrested. We also need an effective sentencing system.
It is dangerous to set out comprehensive principles in relation to sentencing, but one can see the approach that we have taken in the Criminal Justice Bill.
I turn to other important points. First, offenders who have been given every opportunity to get away from crime but who seriously persist in crime should expect custody. For dangerous sexual and violent offenders, the first priority must be public protection. That means that dangerous sexual and violent offenders should be in custody for as long as public protection requires. The changes to sentencing in the Bill reflect that. As for drug-fuelled offending, every opportunity should be taken to get the offender off drugs. He should if necessary be offered the opportunity of treatment but, if he does not take that offer, he should expect the worst consequences of the law, which will frequently mean custody.
As for the type of sentence, heavy regard should be given to reducing reoffending. Again, noble Lords have sought to put the debate in the context of community sentences versus custody. That is not the right way in which to consider the matter. Every sentence must have in mind what would be the most effective way of reducing reoffending. That means effective community sentences when appropriate. We

255
should consider what can be done to reduce reoffending when a defendant is in custody, and we should ensure that there is support for him when he comes out of prison so that he is less likely to reoffend. That is reflected in the Criminal Justice Bill and in the Social Exclusion Unit's report on effective ways of reducing reoffending. Again, it is not an either/or. The purposes must be clear. We are not arguing that one approach is always better than another. The approach taken must have public support, must effectively provide public protection, must reduce crime and must provide reparation by offenders to victims.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is making a very effective speech, as if this were the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill in this House. It is not. A number of us are concerned about how all that is reconciled with an announcement by the Home Secretary that there is to be a minimum sentence of five years for gun crime.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for bringing me to gun crime. It is not possible to look at our approach to burglary and to gun crime without seeking to put our overall approach to sentencing in context. I shall deal first with burglary and then come to questions about gun crime. I apologise if I have been too slow getting there.
We take the view that burglary is a serious crime. As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, made clear, the same view is taken by the Sentencing Advisory Panel, by the Lord Chief Justice the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in his judgment and by my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine. The judgment delivered in the guidelines case by the Lord Chief Justice refers to the sentencing advisory panel and identifies what the typical burglar is and what the typical burglary consists of. Quoting the Sentencing Advisory Panel, he describes it involving a repeat offender, very often the stealing of electrical goods and some personal possessions, and some damage in getting in. The standard burglary will not usually involve violence to the individual house owner, but it will cause trauma. He also makes it clear that repeat offenders should normally merit some sort of custodial sentence. All the indications suggest that that is the typical burglary. It is serious, frequently involves persistence and will normally merit gaol.
The noble and learned Lord also identifies cases in which there is a genuine first-time offender, not somebody who has committed previous offences and who may commit a low level burglary. If it is a genuine first offence, not just a first burglary, and it is a low-level burglary, society may well be best benefited by a community sentence. As the Lord Chief Justice makes clear, that will depend on the facts. Our approach to burglary must be looked at in that context.
Reference has been made to the fact that there is a minimum sentence for burglary. The third conviction for burglary leads to a minimum sentence of three years under the 1997 Act, which the previous government introduced and we brought in in 1999. There is a clear place for minimum sentences, because
256
they send the clearest possible signal that that sort of crime committed in that sort of circumstance is serious and demands serious punishment, such as, in the case of burglary, three years in prison. I believe that to be appropriate. In such cases, Parliament is entitled to send the signal that there should be a remorseless use of a particular punishment. That is the clearest possible deterrent to the relevant sort of criminal.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I understand that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was stepping in behind the Lord Chief Justice to support what he had said. From what the noble and learned Lord has said now, that is clearly in line with government policy. Why did not the Home Secretary do precisely the same, rather than differing from the clear message that has come from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Home Secretary specifically referred to the approach to repeat offenders. In the clarification issued yesterday, the Lord Chief Justice made it clear that a repeat offender could expect immediate imprisonment. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary yesterday welcomed that clarification.
There is no doubt that everybody engaged in the issue is clear that burglary is a very serious offence. We are all aware of the wide range of circumstances, but the typical burglary, as I have described it, normally merits prison.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord can clear up one point that concerns me and others on the effectiveness of prison as opposed to community service in preventing reoffending by first offenders. Is one system more effective than the other?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, prison will be appropriate in certain circumstances. The Home Office independent research department says that it is not possible to draw conclusions on which is more effective, looked at overall. As I said earlier, it is not community sentences versus custody. Custody is appropriate for serious cases, for dangerous sexual or violent offenders or for persistent offenders. The debate is not assisted by seeking to analyse which is more successful overall. We have to identify where custody is appropriate and where a community sentence is appropriate.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, as I read the guidelines issued by the Lord Chief Justice, he makes it clear that sentences of 18 months or less achieve nothing because they result in the defendant being released home in about three months. That means that the Prison Service can provide nothing useful for him. A community-based sentence has the advantage that conditions can be imposed that, if broken, result in the offender going back to court to be sentenced. Such a sentence also offers for three years the protection of

257
him being off the street as a result of wearing the handcuffs or anything of that kind. It is wrong to adopt what the Lord Chief Justice said and yet not to concede that sentences under 18 months—
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord will forgive me, there are only three minutes left for this debate. These constant interventions are not helping the Government to make their case, however good or bad it might be.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there is plainly a separation between us and the Lord Chief Justice. I do not mean there is disagreement, but we are doing different things. I am simply seeking to answer on the Government's sentencing policy.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. I shall deal briefly with the point that has been raised. The Criminal Justice Bill makes it clear that if a custodial sentence that involves a short period in prison is to be useful thereafter, there must be support in the community to assist the offender's reintegration into society. That covers issues such as housing, employment, family relationships and drugs and alcohol.
I shall deal briefly with gun crime. I am afraid that my time is short because I wrongly took too many interventions. Everybody agrees that the problem of gun crime has been growing. The minimum mandatory sentence sends a clear message about how seriously it is to be regarded. The courts will rightly use the sentence remorselessly. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made clear, that is only part of our approach. Other things must be done as well. I disagree with those who say that there is no place for minimum mandatory sentences. There is a place for them. In his guidelines judgment, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, makes it clear that such minimum sentences result in the courts giving a sentence that they would not otherwise give. That sends the clearest possible message of deterrence and makes sure that there is appropriate punishment.
I am sorry that I am not able to deal with all the other points that noble Lords have made. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for giving me the opportunity to put the Government's position.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I think that I have only about a minute to thank all the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. We have achieved something. I chose sentencing because of the obvious confusion in the Government's mind as to their exact policy, and I invited the Minister to see whether he could sort out that confusion. However, the intervention at the end from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, was not properly answered, and we can say that there is still confusion in the Government's mind on this subject. Perhaps they can address that in due course. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Missile Defence
6.11 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made earlier today in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on missile defence.
"The House will recall that, in the defence debate on 17th October, I described the work in the United States on the development of ballistic missile defence systems and the Government's thinking on this issue. Subsequently, on 9th December, as I informed the House during Defence Questions that day, I placed in the Library a discussion paper produced by the Ministry of Defence setting out the role which active missile defence might play within a comprehensive strategy for tackling the threat from ballistic missiles. And on 17th December, I informed the House of the receipt of a request from the United States Government to upgrade the early warning radar at Fylingdales for missile defence purposes.
"I have repeatedly emphasised that the Government would not respond to such a request without a further opportunity for discussion in this House. Next week's defence debate is a very timely further occasion for the House to discuss the challenges that the United Kingdom faces in the new international security environment, including those posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile technology. I hope the House will find it helpful if today I set out the Government's thinking on the US request.
"The Government recognise that missile defence raises important strategic issues, as well as local concerns in North Yorkshire. Following the release of the discussion paper in December, with its invitation to all interested parties to contribute their views, we have had around 300 responses. In addition, I visited North Yorkshire last week, and heard the views of local people and their elected representatives, as well as meeting representatives from the planning authorities.
"We have taken these views into account as we have considered the key question, which is the key test which the Government will apply to the US request—would agreeing to the upgrade of Fylingdales ultimately enhance the security of the UK and the NATO alliance?
"The background to the US request is the marked increase in the potential threat to our security from weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery. The Prime Minister has described weapons of mass destruction as,
'the key issue facing the world community'.
It is a real threat to our security, fanned by proliferation from irresponsible regimes. As we all know, threat is a combination of intention and

259
capability. Intentions can be debated but they can also change at very short notice. The evidence of expanding capabilities cannot responsibly be ignored. The hard fact is that a number of states of concern are making major investments in developing ever-longer range ballistic missiles.
"We are not referring here to countries developing standard military technology against the risk of conventional conflict. These ballistic missile programmes are being developed in order to threaten the delivery of mass destruction—nerve gas, toxins, biological agents or even nuclear warheads. It is the combination of ballistic missiles and the possession of these weapons of mass destruction, together with the demonstrated willingness to use these capabilities, that make Iraq the most immediate state threat to global security.
"Elsewhere, if North Korea ends its moratorium on flight testing, it could flight test a missile with the potential to reach Europe and the United States within weeks. Iran and Libya may acquire similar missile systems, not least through the proliferation of missile technology from North Korea.
"Based on the analysis and discussion which we have undertaken so far, I have therefore come to the preliminary conclusion that the answer to the US request must be yes, and that we should agree to the upgrade as proposed.
"RAF Fylingdales has operated since 1963 as a ballistic missile early warning system, which together with other radars in the United States and Greenland provides tactical warning and attack assessment of a missile attack against the United Kingdom, North America or Western Europe. It has been upgraded a number of times over the years: many honourable Members will recall the old 'golf balls' which were dismantled in the late 1980s and replaced with the existing pyramid-like structure. Indeed, a life extension programme is currently under way to maintain its capabilities to provide early warning and to track objects in space. These missions will continue to be the primary function of RAF Fylingdales.
"There are a number of misapprehensions about the US request which I have sought to dispel in various meetings in North Yorkshire. The proposal is for an upgrade of the existing radar, not some massive new construction. No change to the external appearance of the radar should be involved. The upgrade essentially comprises modification to the hardware and software of the computers within the base.
"There will be no change in the power output of the radar, which is many times below statutory safety limits. We therefore believe that no health risk to people or livestock would arise. We have already explained to the local planning authorities that we see nothing in the upgrade proposals which would require formal planning consultation, and we have promised to provide them with full supporting evidence in due course.
260
"The upgrade of the Fylingdales radar can and should be considered as a discrete proposition. It does not commit us in any way to any deeper involvement in missile defence—although it gives us options to do so, should we decide on this at a later date.
"It will not involve huge costs. The upgrade will be performed at US expense, and we do not expect any significant variation in the running costs of RAF Fylingdales which, as is appropriate for an RAF station, we already bear.
"Agreeing to this upgrade is not at odds with the wider approach of our NATO allies. The Prague Summit agreed,
'to examine options for addressing the increasing missile threat to Alliance territory, forces and population centres'.
The Danish Government have received a parallel request to upgrade the early warning radar in Greenland.
"Missile defence is a defensive system that threatens no one. We see no reason to believe fears that the development of missile defences will be strategically destabilising. Reactions from Russia and China 'have been measured. And missile defence would need to be used only if a ballistic missile has actually been fired. At that point, no matter how much we emphasise our other means of addressing the threat—non-proliferation, intelligence, law enforcement, conflict prevention, diplomacy and deterrence—those means will have failed and cannot be of further help. There would be no way of preventing a devastating impact without intercepting and destroying the missile. Once the missile is in the air, it is unthinkable that anyone could not want us to be in a position to shoot it down.
"These are the reasons for concluding that agreeing to the US request would not prejudice the UK's interests. But beyond this, the key consideration is that it would represent an invaluable extra insurance against the development of a still uncertain, but potentially catastrophic, threat to the citizens of this country. It does not yet represent an immediate threat to us as of today. But there is a distinct possibility that this threat could materialise in the relatively near future.
"It would therefore be irresponsible for the Government to leave the United Kingdom without a route map to acquire a defence against this potential threat. An upgraded Fylingdales radar would be a vital building block on which missile defence for this country and for our European neighbours could later be developed, if the need arises and if we so decide.
"We are confident that agreeing to the request will not significantly increase the threat to the UK. The security interests of the UK are already closely identified with those of the US and other NATO allies, and this will not change regardless of decisions on missile defence. Keeping a low profile and hoping for the best is not an option. We also believe that any increased threat to RAF Fylingdales itself is negligible. For the foreseeable future, states of concern are very unlikely to have the

261
sophisticated capability or size of arsenal to consider targeting specific points or military installations. Long-range missiles in their hands will essentially be weapons of terror. And as with all military installations in the UK, the station is well defended against terrorist attack. But we must not forget that what drives the threat against the UK is not the deployment of missile defences, but those states of concern that develop or acquire weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.
"The upgrade would indicate no commitment to further involvement with missile defence deployments. Separately, we intend to agree a new technical memorandum of understanding with the United States, which would give us full insight into the development of its missile defence programme and the opportunity for UK industry to reap the benefits of participation. But any UK acquisition of missile defence would be subject to a separate decision, at the relevant time. We must approach this in stages, considering each step in the light of how both the threat and the relevant technologies evolve.
"The Government have not yet replied to the US Administration on their request to upgrade the Fylingdales radar. I await with interest the views that honourable Members will wish to put forward, today and in next week's debate. But it is only right that the House should know the Government's preliminary conclusion that it is in the UK's interests to agree to the request. From the UK's national perspective, this specific decision is one that has real potential benefits at essentially no financial cost. But it will ensure that, if in the coming years we find that a potential devastating threat is becoming a reality, we have the opportunity to defend against it.
"Weapons of mass destruction present the gravest risk to the UK's security. A ballistic missile launched at the UK is the most catastrophic potential threat to our people in the future. The Government's first duty is to protect its citizens. I can tell the House that this is a duty that the Government will not shirk from undertaking".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement on missile defence. We on these Benches have consistently made the case for missile defence and we support this government decision, because we believe that it is in the interests of British national security to have a system of missile defence. Can the Minister confirm that any missile defence system of our own would require forward early warning systems to protect the UK and would these be located in south-east Europe? What action is being taken over theatre missile defence?
As in any Statement, there are always a number of issues that require further clarification. Are Her Majesty's Government now confident that new
262
technology will be successfully developed to make missile defence a practical reality, and what British government control will there be over the use of Fylingdales and the information gathered by the facilities there?
Is it possible that Menwith Hill will be included in the programme at some future date and, in return for British agreement to the United States' request, will the Government now actively secure the involvement of the British defence industries in the development of missile defence?
On 17th December, the Government produced an explanatory public discussion paper on missile defence, which included proposals for radars, sensors, interceptors and anti-missile missiles based on land, sea and air, and satellites. Now—only about eight parliamentary working days later—Her Majesty's Government announce their decision. The Minister said that there have been some 300 responses to this document so far, but could he tell the House how the consultation process will now continue as the Ministry of Defence has already come to the preliminary conclusion that the answer to the US request must be "Yes", and that we should agree to the upgrade as proposed?
It is difficult to see why so many objections have been raised against a missile defence system when a ballistic missile early warning system has been operating at Fylingdales, providing tactical warning and attack assessment of a missile attack against the UK, North America and western Europe, since 1963, especially when there is a proposal only for upgrading the existing radar, comprising modification to the hardware and software of the computers within the base. There will be no health risk to people and livestock and it should not commit us to deeper involvement in missile defence or involve us in huge costs.
We agree that a ballistic missile defence system would represent an extra insurance against the still uncertain but potentially catastrophic threat to the citizens of this country and the interests of the UK.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we on these Benches are particularly grateful that the Government have agreed to repeat the Statement in this House and we thank the Minister for doing so.
However, the Statement is rather worrying. The line that I find most worrying is that which asserts that the answer to whether missile defence should be upgraded in this country "must be yes". I also ask why we are doing this in such a rush at the moment. The Statement appears to advance the Government's view that the case has been won for missile defence and it appears to negate the whole purpose of the consultation, which has not yet been concluded. I believe that although 300 submissions have been made, there is still a week in which to supply further submissions. It is unfortunate that we have not waited until the end of the process before coming to conclusions.

263
The whole point of missile defence is to institute a missile shield. Fylingdales as a radar system is obviously not part of that shield; it involves the early warning system that will indicate where a missile is coming from. If a missile were directed against the UK, under the present system there would be no way in which it could be intercepted. If Fylingdales picked up a missile flying over British airspace and an interception missile was fired from the United States, where would such an interception take place? Is there a system that would stop an interception taking place in the mid-range of the trajectory? If an intercontinental ballistic missile were involved, the interception could take place over British airspace or that of our European allies, and there would be resulting contamination from the missile's warhead. That is a particular concern.
If the Government are considering not simply providing radar facilities for the United States but also the placement of anti-ballistic missiles, where would they be placed? Would they be placed within Britain, and what cost would that involve? As we understand it, the case has not been made for the technical aspects of the missile system—whether they would work. Only a few tests have been undertaken and their results are extremely dubious.
How far have the costs of the system been analysed and how deeply have the cost implications been tested? As with the Star Wars system, this system appears to be open ended. The Minister will have some understanding of how much Fylingdales will cost but how much will it cost to site an anti-ballistic missile system, which I believe needs hot missiles, in this country? Have the Government considered how much that system would cost?
The Minister talked of the economic benefit to British industry of taking part in an anti-ballistic missile programme. However, is it really the case that it will be economically advantageous not only to British industry but to the taxpayer to take part in what could be a potential arms race with no end? As the Minister said, there is no real indication of from where the threat would come.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments and questions. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, for voicing his party support for what I have repeated today.
It is important that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, remembers that we are living in a different world from the one that we lived in before 11th September 2001. It is apparent that some states—not only terrorist groups within states but states themselves—are absolutely determined to build ballistic missiles and to have weapons of mass destruction. That combination presents a huge danger that did not exist previously in the same way. It is a danger to the United Kingdom, to the United States and to other countries, too. It is essential that the House recognises that the situation
264
has changed and that the present case for missile defence is undeniably stronger because of the dangers that such states present for us.
Having said that, let us remember what is being announced today. We are announcing that it is the Ministry of Defence's and the Government's preliminary view that the request from the United States, which has not itself decided on a deployed missile defence system, for the existing equipment at Fylingdales to be upgraded should be given permission by the British Government. That is all. We are not making a decision today about whether or not the United Kingdom requires a missile defence system. That is something that we and Parliament must consider, and that will be done in due course. We are simply announcing that we are tending towards the view that we should be prepared to allow the United States' request.
So far as concerns theatre defence, as the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, knows, NATO researches are coming to a conclusion. It remains our view in the United Kingdom that it would be premature to decide now on acquiring an active ballistic missile defence capability for our forces deployed overseas. That view is based on our assessment of the threat, on the rapidity with which relevant defence technologies are changing and on the need to evaluate further the potential role of missile defences as one element of a broad-ranging defence response. We believe that we shall come to a conclusion about theatre missile defence within about 12 months. We shall then decide whether we should start the formal process to acquire a national capability.
Whether or not we have a missile defence system for the UK in this country, it is right and appropriate that, using its technological skills, our industry should consider whether it can assist in developing the system that the Americans have decided they will create. That has nothing at all to do with whether or not we have a missile defence system ourselves; it is the way that the defence industry works.
As I said, the question for the Government to decide was whether we should say "yes" or "no" to requests from our closest ally to upgrade the existing Fylingdales. To have said "no" effectively would have eliminated any chance in the future of deciding to 'have a missile defence system for this country.
6.34 p.m.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, the Minister spoke briefly about procurement and industrial aspects of that. When the Government respond formally to the United States on this issue, will it be made plain that it is important that British industry retains a capability and involvement in the whole range of interception technology? If Fylingdales is to be upgraded now, and if it is likely that further advances in these systems will take place in future, it is important that in this country we remain not only abreast of developments in that technology but also involved in it.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord that reassurance. So far as concerns research and development and industry, the Memorandum of Understanding that will be signed by the United States and by us will assist British industry. We believe that the American Administration already know what an important part British defence industry can play in relation to their own missile defence.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I was deeply involved in the debates about nuclear deterrence in the 1980s. I was totally opposed to any concept of missile defence because it undermined a fundamentally stable system of mutual deterrence. I accept the Government's point, as stated, for example, in their public discussion paper, that we have now moved into a very different world where the possibility of nuclear weapons being used against us is thinkable. That is, indeed, a very worrying thought. Deterrence will not work against terrorist rogue states in the same way as it did previously. It is doubtful whether any use of nuclear weapons against them in an effort to deter could be morally justifiable.
Therefore, does the Minister agree that, because we have moved into a very different world where the use of nuclear weapons is once again thinkable, there needs to be a new imperative to move to a system of international order where states' legitimate security needs can be taken care of without resort to nuclear weapons? Whether it is a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, a North Korea, an Iran or an Israel, to mention some states, there needs to be a new impetus. Of course, we have eaten the apple of nuclear knowledge and we cannot return to a pre-nuclear Eden. But we can move into a safer world than we have at present.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful for the question and comments from the right reverend Prelate. With regard to what he said about deterrence, we have moved into a new world. But there is no point in our arguing—we do not do so—that to enter into a missile defence theory is somehow to remove the need for deterrence as well. It is because mutually assured destruction and all that went with it does not apply to a number of states of concern that the Americans, the United Kingdom and other countries—those in NATO—must consider how best to react to the undoubted threats that such countries now represent for us.
Of course, we face those threats not simply by setting up a missile defence system but by employing all the other methods that are still important, such as non-proliferation, diplomacy and others that have been mentioned many times. It is interesting to note that at one stage when the missile defence debate was taking place, there were fears that Russia, for example, would respond extremely badly to this new state of affairs. In fact, the Moscow agreement between the United States and Russia to dispose of a large number of nuclear weapons is, in one sense, a consequence of the debate about missile defence.
266
I agree with the right reverend Prelate when he says that there must be a new world order in terms of nuclear weapons. I mention, in passing, the new code of conduct, which the British Government played a significant part in putting forward.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I ask the Minister to comment on the absence from the Statement and from the speeches of other noble Lords of any reference to the European role. We are moving into a world of European technology in terms of space, space detection and European-wide radar systems. How is it that this whole discussion is taking place entirely within a British-American context? Can that aspect be elaborated on?
Lord Bach: My Lords, for some time this argument was seen in terms largely concerning the United States, and it still is. When repeating the Statement made in another place I said that NATO considered the issue at Prague. It resolved to look into the whole question of missile defence to see whether it would be appropriate for Europe and for the NATO alliance. Our view, and I am sure that of the United States, is to take a NATO and allied view as regards missile defence. I believe that my noble friend is wrong to say that there is no European dimension to this issue.
As regards theatre missile defence, we have been working with our NATO allies to see how practical it is, what form it should take and whether we should be part of it. We are talking to our NATO allies about territorial missile defence. They have already expressed a view.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, very recently the Minister referred to discussions with the Russians. I ask about discussions with the Chinese. Until now they have been fairly reluctant, to put it mildly, about missile defence. What sort of response has the United Kingdom Government received from the Chinese?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the Chinese remain suspicious that United States missile defence plans are directed at negating their own nuclear deterrent. China began its strategic nuclear force modernisation programme a long time ago, in the mid-1980s, and long before the emergence of recent missile defence concepts. Therefore, it is hard to argue that it began its nuclear force modernisation programme because of the missile defence concept. Discussions have taken place. China knows that missile defence is not aimed at Russia or China but at those states of concern, as I have called them. The United States has made that clear to China on many occasions. The United States missile defence proposals are intended to deal with very limited threats, beginning with a handful of warheads in the hands of states of concern and the emergent missile capabilities. It is not intended to defend against responsible states with established strategic forces. China comes into that category, and what is more important, China knows it.
Lord Powell of Bayswater: My Lords, I join others in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement,

267
and I very much welcome the decision in principle to respond positively to the request from the United States. That must be the only proper response to such a request from a very close ally. I hope also that it will be a first step towards acquiring a missile defence capability for the United Kingdom or towards involving ourselves in an American system. In that context, can the Minister tell us what discussions are in train with the United States Government about the United Kingdom having such a capability, and what broad time scale he envisages in which decisions will be brought forward and discussed more widely?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful for the support which the noble Lord, Lord Powell of Bayswater, gives to the Government for the near-decision which we have announced today. The noble Lord has great experience in these fields. I am sure that, in turn, he will forgive me when I say that discussions with the United States are ongoing and have been for some time. On the question of the time-scale for any decision by the United Kingdom to seek missile defence for our own country, it is too early to say when such a decision would be made. As the noble Lord would expect, we are in close discussions with the United States about the issue, as we are with NATO.

Maternity Services
6 46 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege rose to call attention to the quality of provision for maternity services in the United Kingdom; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest in that I am a vice-president of the Royal College of Midwives and a patron of the National Childbirth Trust—two very remarkable organisations. Together with the distinguished noble Lord, Lord Patel, I am a vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Maternity Group and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, is our treasurer.
I suspect that the uninformed might think that in this House the subject of maternity services is a minority sport. They would be wrong. The list of distinguished speakers pays the lie to that. I thank all noble Lords who have chosen to take part this evening. I know that there is a wealth of wisdom and experience here and I very much look forward to what noble Lords have to say and to the Minister's response. I have given the Minister notice of four questions, for which I am sure he is ready with comprehensive answers.
The Minister will be aware that 10 years ago I wrote in the foreword to Changing Childbirth:
"Pregnancy is a long and very special journey for a woman. It is a journey of dramatic physical, psychological and social change; of becoming a mother, of redefining family relationships and taking on the long-term responsibility for caring and cherishing a new-born child. Generations of women have travelled the same route, but each journey is unique"—
and that is surely the point. Every woman is unique; every baby is unique; every birth experience is unique. That is why it is so important to give a woman and her
268
partner choice: choice of place of birth; choice of style of care; and choice of professional who is going to accompany them in this unique and very special journey.
In the 10 years since I wrote those words, much has changed: more young women are going to university or college; more women are entering the professions; more women in the population are from ethnic minorities; more women are the single parent and more women are the sole bread-winner.
The birth rate is declining and the teenage pregnancy rate increasing. Yet the words I wrote are as true today as they were a decade ago. They are as relevant to those who are less articulate, who struggle to make ends meet, as they are to those who have an easier and more comfortable life.
My concern is that with the closure of so many maternity units, with the crisis in recruitment and retention of midwives, not only is choice a luxury, but the very basic standards are not being met.
In a civilised country, the fourth richest in the world, is it not reasonable to expect that every mother giving birth should be accompanied by a midwife, a knowledgeable and skilled professional, to accompany her through what can be a traumatic and frightening experience?
All research shows that when a woman is well supported her labour is quicker, there is less use of analgesics and there are fewer medical interventions. We also know that one intervention leads to another and increases the likelihood of a caesarean section. One caesarean section tends to lead to another, especially if it is a first baby, so the rise is expediential.
The rate has increased by I per cent a year, almost doubling in the past 10 years and is now comparable with that in the USA. One in five women in England and Wales now gives birth by caesarean section. But the rate varies enormously from 12 per cent in Shrewsbury to nearly 29 per cent in Coventry. We have to ask, "What have we done to childbirth if women feel they need to have a major operation to avoid it?"
The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, (POST) describes the adverse health implications for the mother and the financial cost to the nation. Every 1 per cent adds £5 million to the cost of services. I know that the Government are prepared to invest in the NHS but this is not the type of investment we should need. There should be investment in obtaining more midwives.
POST now considers the high level of caesarean section rates so serious that it describes it as a public health issue. The World Health Organisation slates that there is no justification to have more than a 10 to 15 per cent rate. The Government should be worried—very worried. I know that next year the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is due to produce some clinical guidelines on caesarean section. My fear is that yet again the emphasis will be on when to carry it out and the pamphlet for women will be about having a caesarean section.
I think that that is foolhardy. We should change the approach. We need to promote normal birth. The assumption should be that births take place either in a birthing centre, a midwifery-led unit, or at home. The pamphlet should be entitled "How to avoid having a caesarean section", and should imply that an obstetric unit is an exceptional place in which to give birth, used only when absolutely necessary. So I would like to ask the Minister my first question. What action are the Government taking to reduce the numbers of caesarean sections? As a result of their actions when do they expect to see a decline in the rate?
However, there are pockets of hope. In Southampton, at a tertiary referral centre, they have bucked the trend. In part of a challenging Sure Start area, they have reduced the rate from 23 per cent to 14 per cent. They have achieved that through the introduction of case-load midwifery, a system where one midwife, working with a colleague to cover for sickness and holidays, looks after a woman during pregnancy, birth and the postnatal period. The midwife builds trust with the woman and her family and knows the circumstances. It is not surprising that when the time comes to give birth, both are confident in the ability of the other. Applications from midwives eager to work in the scheme were over subscribed and not a single one has left since the scheme was set up two-and-a-half years ago.
Reading the very interesting survey by the Royal College of Midwives, it is clear that the majority of midwives leave the profession because they are dissatisfied with the current midwifery organisation and practice. Shortages mean that they cannot practise in the way that they know to be right. The term "midwife" means "with woman" and too many midwives are compelled to be absent leaving the woman to labour alone.
Case-load midwifery and indeed birthing centres do not require rocket science. They require strong midwifery leadership, support from obstetricians, and a presumption that birth is a normal physiological event and not a medical activity. So my second question to the Minister is: what measures are the Government taking to promote normal birth?
Choice and user preferences depend on what is available. The National Childbirth Trust has recently carried out a survey of user representatives' views on the configuration of services. That work was commissioned in response to a policy vacuum and the rising panic at the closure of so many units. The Minister will be aware of Frank Dobson's initiative, when Secretary of State, to set up a multi-disciplinary working party to examine the pattern of maternity services. The report was completed and delivered but never published. The review was prompted by the fears that changes in doctors' working hours, and difficulties in recruiting and retaining midwives and neonatal nurses, would shortly impact adversely on services. Those fears have not lessened but increased, especially with the imminent introduction of the European Working Time Directive.
Two years ago Yvette Cooper, Minister for Public Health, set up another group, the Maternity and Neonatal Workforce Group, whose report was due to be published last summer. I suspect that it was not published, like the earlier report, because it is unpalatable and the Government do not have the courage to face up to the contents. I certainly do not want a report that advocates closures, but at the moment we have a policy vacuum. Services are closing in a haphazard, idiosyncratic and unplanned way. That is no way to govern or manage a national service.
As an aside, I could not help but smile when I read the recent leak in the Financial Times, which stated that,
"the health department needs to do more to convert its broad strategy for improving the NHS into concrete plans".
That came from the head of the Prime Minister's "delivery unit".
At this moment there are rumours that the future of both the midwife-led units in Malmesbury and Devizes is being questioned, despite excellent care being given by midwives whose morale is high. I ask the Minister whether closure is being considered. If so, what is the Government's view? What are the users' views?
At the other end of the spectrum—the highly specialised part of the service—we still await the long promised report on the development of neonatal services. I know that BLISS, the National Charity for the Newborn, is deeply concerned. A recent study published in the British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology showed that in a three-month period 258 women with high risk pregnancies had to be moved to another hospital because the neonatal unit was full or had insufficient staff. Twelve per cent of the mothers were transferred on again to a third unit. Such treatment of very vulnerable women is totally unacceptable.
There is no sensible network for neonatal intensive care baby units or pregnant women at high risk. There is no clear political support for birthing centres, midwife-led units or home births. There is no commitment to audit health outcomes. As a result the strategy to retain more midwives and neonatal nurses is undermined. There is no national framework for responding to the European Working Time Directive which is cutting the number of doctor hours. The National Childbirth Trust survey indicates that users are not fully involved in proposed changes. Access to midwife-led and community-based care, including home-birth services, is evaporating.
So my last two questions are: when will the Government publish the report of the Maternity and Neonatal Workforce Group on reconfiguration of maternity services, and what measures are the Government taking to reduce the impact of the European Working Time Directive on the staffing in maternity units? I hope that I have not been too depressing. There are some good things happening, not least the formation of a new organisation: the Birth Centre Network. However, the overall picture is pretty bleak and in many places good initiatives are withering. I am sad to see, as a whole, this crucial service go backwards—a view expressed to me by a very distinguished director of midwifery.
In Changing Childbirth we said that we wanted to see a service which did not jeopardise safety, yet was kinder, more welcoming and more supportive to women. Is that really too much to ask? My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, on securing this important debate on the quality of our maternity services, particularly in the NHS. I thank the noble Baroness for inviting me to speak on an issue that is of professional interest to me as a retired paediatrician who practised care of newborn babies in a Liverpool hospital.
Maternity services are crucial to the well-being of mothers and their babies during pregnancy and particularly in labour and childbirth. Failure to maintain high quality maternity care may result in catastrophe with severe life-threatening complications leading to the death of mother and baby.
The latest report of confidential inquiries into maternal deaths from 1997 to 1999 was published in December 2001. The report, entitled Why Mothers Die, showed a small reduction in deaths from obstetric causes. Suicide in the postnatal period was the leading cause of death. But vulnerable and socially excluded women had high death rates. They included women living in poverty, those suffering from domestic violence, very young girls and women from ethnic minority groups.
I wish to focus on issues of staffing of services, patients' choice, prevention of complications to newborn babies and the care of ethnic minority women. High-quality maternity services depend on a variety of staff, in particular midwives, as mentioned by the noble Baroness.
The Department of Health is to be congratulated on its modernisation initiative of creating consultant midwives who undertake the supervision of midwife-led childbirth services. For the vast majority of women in childbirth, these services have been welcomed and are beneficial to mothers and their families.
But nine out of 10 maternity units in the NHS in England have unfilled posts for midwives, and the overall and long-term vacancy rates are the highest that the Royal College of Midwives has recorded, according to its latest survey conducted in July 2002. Long-term vacancies lasting for three months or more accounted for 59 per cent of vacancies in England.
London has critically high levels of midwife vacancies. On a personal note, my daughter resigned after three and a half years working as a community midwife in a central London maternity unit because of the excessively heavy workload resulting from the hospital's inability to recruit and retain community midwives.
The number of former midwives returning to practice still represents less than 1 per cent of midwives in post and less than 10 per cent of all joining the service. That represents a huge wastage in highly trained people the National Health Service needs
272
today. So I look forward to the Minister's response about the recruitment and retention of midwives and plans to improve the situation.
Maternity services have improved the choice of care for women in pregnancy and labour. As most pregnancies are normal, midwife-supervised antenatal care in the community is now common. Women with experience of normal pregnancies and births can opt to deliver at home if facilities are optimal and community midwives are available.
The improvement in patients' choice of maternity care depends on a normal pregnancy being regularly monitored by midwives and, where necessary, by obstetricians. It is also dependent on rapid transfer of the woman to hospital in the event of complications during labour.
In addition, patients who make informed choices about childbirth preferences should also be prepared to share responsibility when complications arise. In our increasingly litigious society, highly motivated doctors and midwives need to have the assurance that they will not be taken to court for every unforeseen complication associated with childbirth.
Enormous monetary settlements in court, in particular for severe brain injury to the baby associated with complications during labour and delivery, may take place many years later. These judgments have increased substantially in the last decade in England. I question the ethics of such inordinately large cash settlements when the affected individual will continue to receive expensive and long-term care free through the NHS and local social services.
The desired outcome of every pregnancy and labour is the birth of a healthy baby, looked after by a healthy mother. Antenatal care is designed to monitor the health of both pregnant mother and her unborn baby. Midwives and obstetricians are trained to identify the at-risk pregnancy and recommend transfer of the woman to a hospital where both mother and newborn baby can be cared for by specialists.
A small proportion of all births will require intensive care for babies born prematurely. The outcome of these births depends on the transfer to an appropriate hospital before labour begins. The transfer of sick and tiny babies after delivery tends to be complicated, with problems requiring intensive care of the newborn, and their outcome is compromised.
In that regard, health professionals involved in maternity care are waiting for the publication of the report on neonatal intensive care. That inquiry was completed a year ago. The report should give recommendations on the standards for the care of very sick babies born too early to survive without intensive life-saving support in hospital. I hope the Minister can tell us when the report will be published.
I want to draw your Lordships' attention to the plight of ethnic minority women in maternity care. Their numbers are increasing because of the younger age of ethnic minority groups. According to the confidential inquiries into maternal deaths in 1997–99, published in December 2001, Why Mothers Die, to

273
which I have referred, women from ethnic groups other than white and who speak little English are twice as likely to die than those in the white group.
Access to care is an issue for many of these women. One in five who died booked late for maternity care—that is after 24 weeks' gestation—or they had missed more than four routine antenatal visits.
In a large number of cases, professionals used family members to interpret for ethnic minority women. The report stated that there were several difficult cases where children were used inappropriately to interpret intimate personal or social details of the mother, and vital information was withheld.
I am appalled to read details of such poor quality practice in the NHS occurring today regarding interpreting for women who speak little English. For the past decade, recommendations have been sent out to all public services, including the NHS, about the need to arrange for a trained interpreter to assist people and patients who do not speak much English.
Many local reports throughout the NHS in GP practices and hospital clinics have demonstrated the importance of using interpreters who are trained to observe confidentiality and who are competent in the vocabulary of healthcare. In that connection, it is totally unsatisfactory for bilingual professional staff in hospitals to be called to interpret for patients outside their units. That practice disrupts the work of clinical units and leads to poor ratings for bilingual staff who are identified as not fully committed to the work they have been trained for and for which they are being paid.
Now that the Race Relations (Amendment) Act has made it compulsory for all NHS trusts to write race equality schemes, should we not ensure that the provision of trained interpreters is of the highest priority? The excuse of some managers that I have met is that interpreters are expensive and not required daily. Therefore, they are not considered essential. Will the Minister address that essential issue, which has caused the deaths of many women from ethnic minority groups using our maternity services?
Finally, The National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report, published in October 2001, showed that in many regions in England one in three women have a caesarean birth. The highest rates are among ethnic minority women who speak little English. More research needs to take place to find out whether these surgical interventions are a consequence of poor antenatal clinic attendance with complications during labour. If that is the case, trained interpreters, bilingual midwives and doctors could run clinics in order to identify pregnancy problems early and avoid caesarean births.
Our maternity services are clearly of high quality, but we must address issues of staff shortages, the need for trained interpreters and guidelines on intensive neo-natal care and claims for medical negligence, to make those services even better and the best ever in the history of the NHS.
7.10 p.m.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, on initiating this debate, which is terribly important. I am saddened that it must take place at all. We know very well what is best practice in this country. We can make childbirth an experience that women remember with awe and happiness. We know exactly how to do that because our best practice is magnificent.
Unfortunately, as my noble friend Lord Chan said, it is the most vulnerable young women who suffer the worst as a result of existing inequalities. We lack a strategy to ensure that those vulnerable women obtain access to best practice across the country.
We talk a lot about giving women choice, but we know that choice means having adequate knowledge, and it is obvious that many women, especially the most vulnerable ones, do not have that information to hand. We also know that women—especially young, first-time mothers—need someone who will listen to their fears with sympathy and understanding to make them feel that they are an important part of the journey that they are undertaking, which was so eloquently described by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. If people feel that their concerns are being taken seriously, they can then understand when they are not always met in the way in which they thought that they ought to be.
However, the ideal is a one-to-one service for all women. Where that is impossible, we should at least have community midwife teams, so that women know their names and know that one of them will be available to go with them to their scans, when they go to have the baby and afterwards, when they return home from hospital. We ought to be able to offer that to all women. However, we know that one-to-one services demand large numbers of trained midwives working long hours. Not everyone is willing to undertake such work. Staff concentration is expensive. I wish that our goal was to make that choice available to all women.
Everyone acknowledges that the shortage of midwives is a tragedy and must be addressed as a priority. Being a midwife can give people enormous job satisfaction, if we can get it right. We ought to set targets, and I hope that the Minister will tell us that he will. For example, we should aim to get the caesarian section rate at least down to the same level as that of the Netherlands and Scandinavia.
If a one-to-one or similar service was available throughout the country—it is not; in London, it is not even available from one part of a borough to another—we could inform women of the real implications of caesarean operation, future difficulties that they may experience as a result and why it is important to avoid them if one can. It would be ideal if we could develop dedicated birth centres, which the noble Baroness described, away from but near enough to an acute care centre so that, where necessary, women could be sent there. Normal birth would then be the norm for all our women.

275
I want there to be an on-going contact point for all women, from early pregnancy right through the experience of having a baby, delivery and early childhood and leading to contact with a health visitor, which takes them through until the child is five years old. Together with excellent initiatives such as HomeStart for the most vulnerable, that would begin to ensure a healthy, secure and supported start to life for all our children and a healthier and better adulthood, with genuine support for Britain's women —one not of isolation but of pleasure and happiness for them and their families.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for introducing this important topic, and for her elegant and knowledgeable speech. I also declare an interest as the chair of the research governance committee of Addenbrooke's NHS Trust and Cambridge University Clinical School, and as a former non-executive director of Addenbrooke's NHS Trust.
Like so much of the NHS, maternity services are under severe stress—some might even call the stress in some areas intolerable. Despite the excellent work undertaken by consultants, midwives and technical and support staff, staff shortages mean that services are having to be cut back and wards are closing, decreasing the service available to women and their babies and causing mothers a great deal of anxiety and distress.
In the modern age, young mothers have high expectations—far higher than when most of us underwent our pregnancies. For the modern woman, scans, screening, blood tests and management of all kinds of abnormalities are available. Excellent though it is that those services are now available—many mothers and babies are healthy because of them—they all require a huge increase in specialised time, which is increasingly difficult to find. As my noble friend Lady Cumberlege said, the biggest issue is the shortage of midwives. The Rosie Maternity Hospital in Cambridge, part of the Addenbrooke's NHS Trust, is 20 per cent below its funded numbers—that is, it receives funding for 20 per cent more midwives than it can possibly find. That is a terrible waste of government funding.
No doubt, at the end of our debate the Minister will tell us about the large sums of money that have been invested in the NHS, but I hope that he will also acknowledge that there can be no adequate return of money supplied for services where the goods and services for which it is given are simply not available. Money for non-existent nurses or doctors and the beds that they make possible is a recipe for inflation and bad management and produces no improvement for patients.
According to the Government's research measurements for workforce planning, Addenbrooke's needs another 60 per cent more midwives than it has currently. At present, it has only 105 midwives; using the Government's workforce planning measure, it needs 169.
276
That is a serious situation, but there is little hope that it will be solved, because the number of midwives entering training is also thinning to a small number.
The traditional route was 18 months of post-registration training. Those places are now not being taken up as people who have become nurses consider the stresses of the midwife's job. The shortage of other midwives, long hours and inadequate pay, especially for those who work in high cost areas such as London and Cambridge, are not an inducement, even though the 18-month route has the advantage of paying a full salary while in training.
In response to the low take-up of the 18-month post-registration route, the Government set up an alternative route of three-year direct entry training. That was a good idea, but unfortunately there is no funding for students on that course. That is a real difficulty, especially for the kind of person that the course was intended to attract: the more mature woman, who thinks carefully before undertaking three years of training that will be a heavy burden on her pocket and, perhaps, that of her family.
I am told by senior midwives that the profession aspires to the status of an all-graduate profession, but the lack of student support and the introduction of fees in higher education makes that a very distant prospect. What is more, there is developing a severe shortage of trainers of midwives. Midwives now have three alternative routes to promotion and to higher status. They can become teachers, as midwifery trainers; they can become managers; and, under a new government initiative, they can now become consultant midwives.
Of course, the consultant midwifery initiative was introduced with the best of intentions. It is a good idea to offer a promotional route to enable staff to stay in the clinical environment. Unfortunately—or perhaps one might even say fortunately—that has proved to be a very attractive route to midwives because most like to remain in the clinical area. However, because so many midwives are choosing the consultancy, route, the teaching and management routes are experiencing severe difficulties in recruitment. Therefore, the number of teachers available—even if it were possible to recruit candidates for training—is becoming a major problem.
As other noble Lords have said, there is the related problem of the shortage of neonatal cots and neonatal nurses. Noble Lords mentioned the long wait for a government response to the report on neonatal services. Because of the delay and shortage of neonatal cots and neonatal nurses, women in labour find themselves being piled into ambulances—quite often at a late stage in their labour—to be taken to a hospital where provision is available for their baby. In one recent case, a new mother was even told to get on a train so that she could catch up with her baby who had been taken to a neonatal unit. That must be a terrible experience for a woman a few hours after childbirth.
The position on consultants also gives little cause for optimism. Recent changes in training conditions, and the results of the European Working Time Directive, mean that there are now fewer available hours of

277
consultant time. Already the European Working Time Directive means that all time "on-call" is counted as working hours, which will be reduced to 48 hours by 2009. Working hours are being reduced with the best of intentions, but that reduces the number of hours of consultants being available to help in the most difficult cases.
For reasons best known to themselves, the Government reduced the number of consultants in obstetrics' training in 1998–99. There appears to have been no account taken in the 1998–99 report—which resulted in the reduction of training places—of the effects of the European Working Time Directive and the changes in training conditions. Therefore, the number of consultants in obstetrics training was cut back and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in its 2000 report, Blueprint for the Future, predicted a major shortfall by 2003 as a result of that reduction in training places. That is already becoming apparent in key areas.
I ask Her Majesty's Government to act and act very quickly to remedy this situation. I hope that the Minister will give us some reassurances. Incidentally, by action, I do not mean throwing more money at the NHS; I mean a hard look at what is needed to solve some of the problems.
In spite of the problems, there is good news to report. With the leave of the House, I should like to pay tribute to the hospital that I know best—the Rosie Maternity Hospital—for the initiatives that it has managed to introduce and its achievements in recent years. In the past two years two new consultant posts—one, a professor in the university clinical school—have been established. That means that women who have difficulties with their pregnancy and birth are now being referred to the hospital from the whole region. At the same time, that has driven up the quality of provision for all women, including those with normal births.
A high dependency unit is being established for women with difficulties. The training is already in place; the unit will move into action soon. Plans are also moving ahead for a multi-disciplinary perinatal service, bringing together neonatology, neonatal-surgery, genetics and radiology. That means that a splendid service will be provided not only for women in difficulties but for all women in the region.
For the healthy—one might say—normal birth, a midwifery-led unit has been established which includes a birthing pool—a thought which I find terrifying, but which seems extremely popular with young mothers. A newly appointed consultant midwife is leading that service. There is closer collaboration with neighbouring hospitals enabling women to be cared for in the way which is most appropriate for them. As my noble friend said, every woman and every baby is individual and deserves individual, carefully tailored care.
278
With those initiatives the hospital and the trust are able to provide a service tailored to individual needs. All they ask is for less government direction and interference. They believe that the maternity services can deliver and should be left to do so.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Patel: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for initiating this debate. There can be little doubt about her commitment to improving maternity services. Her report, Changing Childbirth, familiarly known as the Cumberlege report, may not have been universally well received, but it certainly raised the profile of maternity services and changed the thinking from looking at maternity services from the profession's point of view to putting mothers and babies centre stage.
Irrespective of any changes in the services introduced now or in the future, we should not go backwards. We run the risk of doing so with some of the recent reconfiguration of services. Frankly, our maternity services are in a mess. However, there is still time to stop the situation worsening if there is recognition from the centre that something needs to be done.
Much of today's debate is about the reconfiguration of maternity services that is going on ad hoc—for example, as a response to the pressure of reduction in junior doctors' hours, shortage of staff, lack of resources, cost saving initiatives, falling birth rate, smaller units, and so forth.
In an attempt to cope with the pressures, managers and clinicians embrace changes that do not serve the needs of mothers and their babies. Amalgamation of maternity units into bigger units, without capacity building in the number of staff and facilities, leads to further reduction in the quality of care delivered, and standards fall. Evidence gathered from midwives, the National Childbirth Trust and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists demonstrates that.
Every time there is a crisis of confidence in maternity services an inquiry is held. It happened with the Peel report and again in 1992 when the House of Commons Health Select Committee conducted an inquiry into maternity services—to which I was one of the advisers. That led to the then government report, Changing Childbirth.
It was announced yesterday that the Maternity Services Sub-committee of the House of Commons Health Select Committee is to start an inquiry focusing on variation in maternity services, data collection, staffing structures, caesarean section rates, and so forth. There are also other initiatives. We heard about the initiative from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which has commissioned guidelines on caesarean section following a national audit. I hope that the guidelines will define standards of care that women undergoing caesarean sections should expect, including who makes, and has the responsibility for, the decision to carry out a caesarean section.

279
I understand that in future there will be guidelines for antenatal care and screening in pregnancy. Other initiatives have already been mentioned—the workforce group on children's and maternity services, a department initiative report on criteria to be met when reconfiguring maternity services. The Secretary-General of the Royal College of Midwives and I, with the former Secretary of State, Frank Dobson, asked for that initiative report to be carried out. Neither of these reports is in the public domain. I wonder what the recommendations were that cannot be made public.
Another initiative set up by the Department of Health is the National Service Framework for Children's Services, but it will include a section for maternity services. Will the Minister say whether this section defines the framework for maternity services?
It all seems to be rather haphazard planning. What we need is a co-ordinated strategy, initiated by the Department of Health, together with maternity services, in the same league as our near-neighbours in Europe, or better.
We have a serious shortage of staff. All of the previous speakers have referred to this. We have a huge shortfall in the number of midwives, a profession that is key to delivering high-quality care to all mothers and their babies during both pregnancy and the post-partum period. We have a shortage of obstetricians, particularly of those who are able and willing to deliver hands-on care at all times of the day whenever women need their help.
The noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark, eloquently described the problems and how they occurred, and I will not dwell on them again, but I am grateful to her for highlighting them. Apart from obstetrics being a more demanding specialty, obstetricians and gynaecologists may see the choice of taking one of the ever-expanding, sometimes esoteric, gynaecological sub-specialties as a better option. If so, there may be a need to look at the training and remuneration for obstetrics as distinct from gynaecology. The training of doctors and all health professionals should reflect the health needs of society. I hope that a new postgraduate medical education and training board, when established, will have the responsibility and authority to make sure that all training programmes reflect this.
I am pleased to see the current president and vice-president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Professor Dunlop and Miss Mellows, attending this debate. I am sure that they and the college will look at ways to improve recruitment to obstetrics, for it is important that women who need care from obstetricians receive it from fully trained and competent doctors. Managers, also, should recognise the need to recruit more obstetricians.
My noble friend Lord Chan has already alluded to the problems with paediatrics and ethnic minorities. I simply concur.
Staffing is not the only issue. We have a lack of appropriate facilities. This leads to an early discharge of mothers and babies from maternity units. It could
280
affect rates of breast feeding and confidence building, particularly in first-time mothers. We have examples of women in labour, sometimes with problems identified in the antenatal period, being asked to stay at home until a bed is found somewhere, risking both themselves and their babies.
In terms of outputs we do not feature in the top league. While our perinatal mortality is not the worst in the developed world, it is well down the league table. We have not seen a reduction in the unexplained antenatal still birth rate for more than a decade. We have the second-highest rate of low-birth weight babies in the developed world, second only to the United States of America.
We have a high a premature birth rate. Now I know that social deprivation is an important factor for poor outcomes for mother and baby. Therefore, it is even more important that our services can deliver care to these at-risk mothers. Our data collection system is inadequate and we are not able to compare outcomes related to different models of care in the whole population.
We have a rising caesarean section rate. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, referred to this. It will keep on rising until we have a service that provides one-to-one support to all women in labour by midwives and care by trained and competent obstetricians for those women who are at risk of requiring caesarean section. Both midwife and obstetric support is essential if we are to reduce caesarean section rates.
We also have one of the highest rates of litigation: 50 per cent of all medical litigation is related to pregnancy and child birth. It is estimated that the cost of settlements of currently pending cases may well be in the region of £2 billion to the NHS. I understand that the department has on-going initiatives through risk management and clinical governance to reduce the level of litigation in obstetrics.
I return to my theme of haphazard, uncoordinated stabs at tackling the problems. Does the Minister not agree that it would be better now to produce a Department of Health- sponsored maternity services framework, with clear targets for implementation and monitoring, which the future commission for health auditing inspectorate could monitor? Both Scotland and Northern Ireland have done so and I would commend to the Minister the Scottish framework and implementation documents.
I agree that the current configuration of maternity services is not sustainable for all the reasons mentioned earlier. We need to develop services which recognise this, but which also recognise that the potential of all professionals involved in caring for mother and baby needs to be harnessed in a co-ordinated way, working across boundaries, while at the same time they retain their own professionalism.
This has implications for common, continuing education programmes. For this to happen, there needs to be committed and strong leadership from the centre and all health professions, with the focus on the needs of women and their babies.

281
It is not too late. Here is an opportunity for the Minister to give a lead and bring our maternity services into the 21st century, for a model service that we can all be proud of. He could start by establishing a framework for maternity services.
Finally, I did not declare an interest at the beginning. My credentials are all too clear. I feel passionately about the care of women in pregnancy and labour. For most of my life I have been an obstetrician.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, it is an honour to follow my noble friend Lord Patel, and I wish to add my name to those who want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for raising this debate and for the customary skill with which she introduced it and faced us with the facts and issues.
If I have an interest to declare in this debate, it is that last year was the 50th year since I completed my midwifery training. I hasten to assure the House that I am no longer registered to practise as a midwife, but I have a deep interest in midwifery and the welfare of women in childbirth. I view my midwifery experience now with nostalgia and through rose-coloured spectacles. Most of my deliveries, some hundreds of them, were home deliveries in a rural area of Herefordshire and it was idyllic—both the country and the experience.
Perhaps I may describe one of my last deliveries. I trudged across a ploughed field with my little black bag to get to an isolated farmhouse where the mother was in labour. Once arrived there, I found there was no running water. Unfortunately, my midwifery training had not taught me how to extract water from a pump. Unfortunately for the father, I had to rouse him from a deep sleep by the fire because he was overcome with the thought of impending fatherhood. He managed to draw water out of the pump successfully.
Later on, the feather bed on which the mother was lying burst. After that, she had a post-partum haemorrhage. We had to call out the Flying Squad, which we then used, to deal with that. However, in some ways, the case finished with every satisfaction for the family and certainly for me, the midwife.
In my state of ignorance about present-day midwifery, I have been so grateful to receive briefing papers that have brought me slightly more up to date than I would otherwise have been in this debate—papers from the National Childbirth Trust; the Royal College of Midwives; the Royal College of Nursing; the Schools of Nursing and Midwifery at the Universities of Manchester and Sheffield; from individuals and various reports of meetings of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Maternity. These have given us a wealth of information about the present situation in midwifery.
Unfortunately, from these papers I get a very strong view that all is not well in the state of our midwifery services. Certainly the experience of some mothers is
282
not now positive, and there is obviously great dissatisfaction among midwives. I therefore wish to talk briefly about the reconfiguration of the service and the kind of structure that there should be in the future; the increasing medicalisation of care, of which we have heard today; the increasing rate of caesarean section; the shortage of midwives; and patient satisfaction, if I get that far.
The reconfiguration of the service is extremely important. What shape should the service take in our present state of health service provision? As I read the papers, there seems to be a stark difference of view between those who favour home births and smaller, midwife-led community units, where care is much more easily accessible to the consumer and the midwife can give much more personal supervision throughout the period of labour. The Secretary of State has described this continued care of the mother by one midwife as the gold standard for our midwifery services.
Set against this position is the view that larger units can effect economies of scale. That is important in the present state of our health service. More importantly, a unit within an acute hospital has obstetricians and paediatricians much more readily available. It is important that this kind of medical help is readily available. I recall one obstetrician with whom I worked frequently stating, "No birth is normal except with hindsight". There may be something in that statement.
We have heard that there is an increasing medicalisation of childbirth, certainly since 50 years ago when I was practising. The increased rate of caesarean section has already been mentioned and is a cause for concern. The "Postnote" that I have received dated October 2002 states that in the 1950s 3 per cent of births in England were by caesarean section; by the early 1990s this had risen to 10 per cent; and to 21 per cent in 2001. But the national figures mask tremendous local variations of between 10 and 30 per cent.
The differential cost to the National Health Service of caesarean section versus vaginal delivery is considerable. The Audit Commission has calculated that every 1 per cent rise in the caesarean section rate costs the National Health Service an extra £5 million a year.
The parliamentary "Postnote" is valuable in regard to the caesarean section rate. It reviews the medical factors that have contributed to the increase, and the non-medical factors such as culture, organisation and maternal choice, which I believe is often influenced by the line taken by the media.
Clearly these are considerations that call for us to think deeply about reconfiguration of the service. I appreciate the paper from the National Childbirth Trust, which looks at the questions that need to be answered before we tackle reconfiguration of the service and contains a suggested reconfiguration.

283
As regards the increased rate of caesarean section, I look forward to receiving the promised guidelines from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Although it is an extremely difficult issue on which to give guidelines, they will be a valuable help to us.
I am extremely concerned, as are many other noble Lords, about the shortage of midwives and the lack of job satisfaction. This situation has been researched by Mavis Kirkham, Professor of Midwifery at the University of Sheffield. The work was sponsored by the Royal College of Midwives and the Department of Trade and Industry Partnership Fund. Professor Kirkham followed up 2,325 midwives who notified their intention to practice in 1999 but did not do so the following year in 2000. That is quite a significant loss of midwives in one year.
Making the decision to leave midwifery was often a protracted and painful business. The professor said that the research painted a depressing picture of a group of committed professional women struggling over a protracted period of time within an environment of increasing confrontation and stress. The largest group of those who left—30 per cent—were dissatisfied with midwifery. There were other causes, but the midwives had a predominant feeling that they could not practise as they were taught to practise under the conditions now existing in the health service.
Midwives are now educated in a way that gives them specialised knowledge and problem-solving skills which enable them to base their practice on evidence derived from research. Their expectation is that they will be able to practise autonomously, but what they meet in practice is very different and bears little resemblance to what is implied in the midwives' code of practice. There are matters which militate against their practising as they would wish. They are made to rotate through all the shifts and around all the areas of clinical practice and feel that they have insufficient control over their working lives. These frequent dislocations of the place in which they practice make it difficult to maintain confidence and relationships with both clients and colleagues. It is essential that we do something about the recruitment and retention of midwives.
As a final point I was going to talk about mothers—the consumers—and patient satisfaction. I shall not do so because my time is up. I wanted to recount to your Lordships the experiences that some of the younger members of my family have had in childbirth. It is not a pretty story.
7.48 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for securing the debate today. Perhaps I may also say how useful I have found the meetings of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Maternity, which the noble Baroness and Julia Drown, MP, founded some two years ago.
Indeed, at the launch of the all-party parliamentary group I was very much struck by the contribution from Cathy Warwick, a clinician at King's College
284
Hospital. The midwifery unit she described that cares for mothers in south London—mothers sometimes living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, often from ethnic minorities and often on low incomes—appeared remarkable. Its practice is an example of the case-load midwifery that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and several other noble Lords have referred to.
According to the evaluation report published in March last year, the Albany midwifery practice was enabling such mothers to achieve breast-feeding rates of 93 per cent at birth, as against a norm for the area of 75 per cent. Breast-feeding remained high at 28 days, at 70 per cent of mothers. Health visitors reported continuing high breast-feeding rates.
Compared with the other midwifery group practices, the Albany practice had a lower induction rate, a higher vaginal delivery rate, a lower elective caesarean section rate, a higher intact perineum rate, a lower episiotomy rate, a greater use of the birthing pool and a lower use of pethidine and epidurals.
There were also benefits from the midwife's point of view. I invite your Lordships to consider what a pleasure it might be for a midwife to follow one mother from registration to birth and from birth to four weeks.
I invite your Lordships to consider how attractive it might be for a midwife to work in the community in a centre which has a safe play area for children, a swimming-pool, a well-equipped gymnasium, right next to the shopping centre in Peckham.
Please consider how satisfying it might be for a midwife to be the mistress of her employment. The Albany practice operates on a contractual basis unique in the UK. The noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, eloquently set out the concerns that midwives feel about not being in control of their working environment and the stress that that places them under. In the Albany practice, they, the midwives, decide on salary and pay, on sickness and holiday leave. They have a practice manager to relieve them of the administrative burden of such responsibility. This control of their working conditions may be helpful in reducing the stress that is inseparable from their work.
The Albany midwives are dedicated to offering continuity of care to their patients. A full-time midwife is on 24-hour call to 36 mothers for nine months of each year.
Thirty-six weeks prior to birth, the primary midwife and secondary midwife will talk the mother and the mother's birth partner through all the options for her care. The primary midwife, the mother's key worker, will explain that she can be reached at any time, day or night, by calling her on her pager.
In practice, mothers almost invariably call during the night only in an emergency, because of the special personal relationship that they develop with their primary midwife and the respect and consideration that that engenders.
The germ of this practice lay in the ambition of three pairs of independent midwives in the early 1990s—one of whom is present in the Public Gallery. They wanted

285
to see the well-evidenced positive outcomes for their paying clients provided for free, on the NHS, to the women who most needed continuity of care. Fostered by a favourable political climate which the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, did so much to engender, their goal has been achieved.
I should say that the past success of the model of caseload midwifery that I have described has been qualified. A great deal of support is necessary for midwives prepared to offer a 24-hour personal service to their clients. Such work would not suit the circumstances of some midwives.
But the outcomes for mothers, for mothers who are particularly vulnerable, are encouraging. The introduction of three months' annual leave, the careful setting of caseload and the increase in professional autonomy, supported by a practice manager, may be attractive to many midwives. The satisfaction of seeing one's patient through the pregnancy and beyond might be an incitement for midwives to continue to work in the profession, and to return to the profession, and for young people to train as midwives.
When I visited the Albany practice yesterday afternoon, I heard how satisfied the midwives felt in their work. I heard of the pleasure they had in not only seeing the infant through the first four weeks, but in also having mothers call by, so that they, the midwives, could see how well the mother's six year-old was doing, a child delivered in the clinic. So the midwives are very much part of their community and can see the children for whom they have cared in the past growing up.
I should like to ask the Minister whether he has studied the Albany model and what lessons he considers can be learnt from it. Is he undertaking research into why this particular model has given rise to high home birth rates and breast-feeding rates in an area of such high deprivation? Will the relationship between the continuity of care given, the provision of ante-natal education and the positive birth outcomes in this model be explored in further research?
I apologise for not giving the Minister notice of these detailed questions. I hope that he may be good enough to write to me if he has no response ready.
Yesterday, I also met with a manager of a children's home with more than 30 years' experience. The home had recently received a troubled 15 year-old girl who was pregnant. The manager was of the view that the model of continuity of care offered by the Albany practice would be exactly that which would be of most benefit to her new resident.
I am advised that it is easy to overlook the vulnerability of mothers during their pregnancy. Because childbirth is common, it can be thought to be unproblematic.
I believe that we still have the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in western Europe. A report by the National Children's Bureau in the 1990s found that nearly half of girls leaving care were mothers within 18 to 24 months. So, there are many groups of mothers who particularly need continuity of care during their maternity.
286
YoungMinds, a charity dedicated to promoting the emotional well-being of children, advises me of the importance of relationships with midwives characterised by continuity, reliability and familiarity. It is vital that mothers should feel ready and welcoming of their baby, vital for the sound and secure attachment to the baby. It is this attachment which so much research underlines as being the sure foundation for an individual life. My noble friend Lord Northbourne may have more to say on this point.
I have no doubt that, if we can develop first-rate services to mothers during their maternity, answering their physical and emotional needs, we shall go some way to ensuring that fewer children go to prison, that fewer children are taken into care and that the cycle of failure from generation to generation is somewhat ameliorated. Hand in hand with improvements in housing, education, other health services, social services and a sound economy, we could see many more children fulfilling more of their potential.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I had already apologised to the noble Baroness for the fact that I might be late this evening. I was, and I apologise to the House.
I want briefly to refer to one specific aspect which may in future become an important part of the role of the maternity services. Over the past 100 years or so, the maternity services have evolved mainly with a concern for the physical welfare of the mother and child. More recently, the emotional welfare of the mother has been of increasing concern.
However, modern research based on powerful new scanners indicates that the period in the womb and the first 33 months of a child's life are critical in the development of that child's brain.
A significant number of children today are born into, and grow up in, severely disadvantaged family circumstances—often multiple disadvantages—and sometimes with parents who have little or no experience of caring for children. In that context, maternity services and staff can be the gatekeepers who identify imminent problems. Some believe that the maternity services can play that very important role. They hold the patient's confidence. Their role should be primarily diagnostic, although some believe that they should also be trained to deliver advice and support services to parents without a clue about how to bring up their child. They could put the advice in simple, common language.
In my view, there is little argument about whether there is a role for the maternity services in identifying problems. The question is whether their role should be purely diagnostic; whether it should be signposting; or whether staff should be trained to deliver support services relating to the mother's emotional condition and the child's cognitive and emotional development needs.
The maternity services should be trained in three aspects: to recognise potential problems; to gain parents' confidence—which they do anyway; and

287
successfully to transfer that confidence to other services. For that, they must be trained, and the other services must be available. I shall explain what I mean by "transfer that confidence". Consider a health visitor who, at the end of the six-week visiting period, tells a mother, "I am sorry, Molly, I am not coming anymore, but I will refer you to Social Services". Contrast that approach with the health visitor who says, "Molly, I am terribly sorry; I shan't be able to help you anymore because I am not allowed to. Butt my friend Susan is really nice and I think you'll like her. Would you like me to give her your name so that she could call and you could see if you like her?". The difference is between acceptance and rejection in the case of many vulnerable people.
I regret to have to say that Social Services are not the people to do this job. Unfortunately, and through no fault of their own, Social Services have become the enemy to many deprived and disadvantaged families. They are thought of as the people who take your child away and are perceived by many as policemen rather than support services.
There is a role for the extended family, but often relatives need support, co-ordination, help and resources. There is a potential role for neighbours, the community and the voluntary sector. These services, wherever they come from, will probably need to be coordinated. possibly for training or accreditation. Who should be in charge of accreditation, training and coordination—the Department of Health, the Department of Education or local authorities? I do not know. But I know that the criterion ought to be: which will be the most effective? I ask the Minister to take into account what I have said.
8.4 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, like others, I welcome this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, does us all a service by reminding us regularly of the enormous importance of the birth process. I apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, who has an unbreakable arrangement abroad. It is a pity because I am sure that he knows much more about these matters than I.
Birth is a process we have all undergone. It is natural and normal and in most cases it has a healthy outcome. The death of mother or child is now a rare result, although no less dreadful when it occurs. Eighty per cent of women have babies, and 90 per cent of those babies are healthy. Of the others, very few require more than a little help with breathing in the first few hours, treatment for jaundice or suchlike. A tiny minority need the highest level of care—on the whole, then, a success story for Mother Nature and the advances in healthcare working together. However, we should heed the words of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on our place in the league table.
Yet, in preparing for this debate, I was struck by the chaos that seems to hang over the service and policy discussions about it. I was also struck by a lack of relevant statistics. What is the best sort of service for mother and baby? Are midwife-led, low-tech
288
procedures in special birth units more appropriate than obstetrician-led procedures in hospitals, with all the high-tech support available? What are the cost benefits of each? Why is the rate of caesarean sections rising so inexorably? Why do rates of so-called "normal" births vary so much between places? Do those two variations not suggest a lack of consensus among practitioners on what constitutes good practice? What is the right level of home births? Why is the percentage rate in single figures in this country while it is around 30 per cent in Holland, to take but one example? Where should we provide care for the most fragile or sick babies? How can we secure the very best service from paediatricians? Why are the statistics so incomplete?
Inevitably, the question arises of why the Government have not given a steer? There have been no responses yet to the National Childbirth Trust Report and no action taken on their own report on neo-natal services. When will the framework document on children's services be published, and what aspects of maternity and neo-natal services will be covered? It appears that NHS trusts require guidance from the Government to assist them with the difficulties in prioritising and judging between the main options for maternity treatment. There can be no doubt about what women want, once someone gives them a chance to talk. They value good advice given in a way that they can understand. They want to be in contact with the same professionals, preferably midwives, during pregnancy, through the confinement and on into aftercare. They prefer the homely surroundings of a local birth unit or community hospital to a more impersonal district hospital.
I hope that the Minister will take on board suggestions from the noble Lord, Lord Chan, and others that more effort needs to be made to take the message of how to access maternity care to the most underprivileged and vulnerable members of our society. It was a very important point which has been echoed by other speakers.
It is very important what mothers think and feel. An experience of childbirth which leaves a mother with postnatal depression can, untreated, result in a four year-old with behavioural problems who turns into a problem teenager. Mothers who are taught to breastfeed will have healthier babies. It is amazing what good midwives can achieve. One practice in a deprived area of south London has achieved a 40 per cent rate of home births with no adverse consequences. With the percentage of home births so low nationwide, it is easy to see what a good and cost-effective achievement that is.
The variation in "treatment"—I put it in inverted commas on purpose—seems extreme judged by the standards of other specialties. Indeed, the very word "treatment" seems wrong. In the majority of cases the mothers do not need "treatment". They are not ill. They just need professional help and support.
I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, on the subject of caesarean section and the need to promote normal birth. As she said, last

289
year Shrewsbury had the lowest rate in England of caesarean section, at 10.4 per cent, and the highest rate of normal birth, at 67.7 per cent. Yet, in Worcester, women have no choice but to go into the infirmary, where the rate of caesarean section is 25 per cent. The mothers seem to have little choice. As others have pointed out, the cost of this high rate of caesarean section is great: each costs £1,000 more than an ordinary delivery. Saving 30 unnecessary caesarean sections buys one midwife. So the opportunity costs are clear. The costs to the child also can be considerable, especially when the procedure is carried out before term.
The reasons for the apparently inexorable increase in caesarean section are not clear. One idea often put about by the press is that it results from the personal choice of smart or busy mums. It could be the result of concentrating births in district hospitals. Again, better statistics would help. Whatever it is, caesarean section must be the only major surgical intervention which seems to be available if asked for, even when it is not necessary.
One thing seems clear—namely, that mothers who have had a caesarean section are almost invariably advised to have another, although I know from experience in my own family that that is not necessarily required. So the most important thing is to try to ensure that the first caesarean never takes place unless strictly required for the health of mother or child.
The problem of a shortage of midwives has been mentioned by many, but particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane. There seems to be a vicious circle at work here. For example, a hospital loses its baby acute care beds and closes the maternity beds as a safety measure, or midwives are transferred to an even larger general hospital where they lose their status, cannot keep in touch with their patients, feel they are not giving the service they want to give, and leave. Something similar can happen when local birth units are closed, as has been happening in recent times, despite the evidence that they can deal with the majority of normal births at least as satisfactorily as any hospital. Any policy which the Government propose will have to recognise the very special role that midwives play in the care of mothers and babies. They will also have to attract back into the NHS those who have left.
This evening a wide measure of agreement has emerged as to what would make a good maternity service. First, proper prenatal care is essential to assess correctly which mothers, or their babies, are likely to need the medical attention that only a hospital can provide—although not even hospitals and senior medical professionals are entirely foolproof. I know of a horrible case, reported to me by one of my colleagues, in which a young woman being examined two months after an ectopic pregnancy was told that a small shadow on the x-ray was nothing to worry about. Two and a half months later, she nearly died after a severe loss of blood from a second ectopic
290
pregnancy. The Ectopic Pregnancy Trust says that such cases of misdiagnosis are common even where there is a history of ectopic pregnancy.
Returning to more cheerful subjects, however, the healthy woman should have a choice of where to give birth: at home, in a reasonably local birth unit or in hospital. In the first two at least, she will be able to have continuous care from the professionals who have looked after her during her pregnancy. If a large number of women chose the first two options and good practice secured the same levels of success that have been mentioned in particular instances, a considerable saving in beds would accrue to district hospitals. I am sure that those beds could be used for things other than housing perfectly healthy women. Post-natal care could be given in the same unit and then in the home.
A real effort should be made to establish breast-feeding, which is cheaper for the mother and better for the baby. Differential rates of breast-feeding are really surprising, with the lowest rate for the least number of weeks among women from more deprived backgrounds—just where the additional protection against illness and obesity given by breast-feeding would be most valuable.
A back-up service would be required should complications arise during the birth, just as for any other medical emergency. Very sick or fragile babies should be treated in specialty centres, if that is the only or best way in which to get the constant presence of a paediatrician and the quality of nursing care that such children need.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to the many questions that have been raised, and his idea of what maternity services should be like.
Lord Winston: My Lords, before the noble Baroness finishes, will she clarify her remark that mistakes are common? Professional mistakes are not at all common in midwifery, but there is a perception—often in the courts, quite unjustifiably—that they are because of monitoring that gives imprecise information. It is unwise to say that mistakes are common. As a practising doctor in this field, I believe that it is untrue.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I bow to the noble Lord's superior knowledge. I was referring to a type of mistake made in a particular case and quoting a letter sent to me by a pressure group. I am sorry if I gave a mistaken impression: I am certainly not suggesting that mistakes are common in obstetric care in general or trying to justify the large claims made by lawyers on behalf of their clients.
8.16 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege for initiating this important debate and for drawing in so many expert speakers. It has been an excellent debate.
We know that the topic is important, as it touches the lives of almost 600,000 women who give birth each year, and the lives of their families. As other noble

291
Lords have said, it is also apt that the debate should be led by my noble friend, who has been closely associated with the development of maternity services over the past decade. The report entitled Changing Childbirth is much better known as the Cumberlege report. That report was revolutionary in proposing women-centred care.
Simple principles underpinned that, including choice for women, continuity of care and control of women over their care. When the Audit Commission examined maternity services in 1997, its report, entitled First Class Delivery, found that the policies of the Cumberlege report were not being achieved. It said,
"there is a wide variation in the sort of service offered that cannot be attributed to women's own choices".
A key issue is what the Government have achieved since 1997. It is far from clear that we can confidently say that in 2003 maternity services live out those principles of choice, continuity in care and control. The Minister has said, on more than one occasion in your Lordships' House, that the principles of Changing Childbirth—the Cumberlege report—are now embedded in maternity services. That is a complacent view and not one that is shared by professionals or users. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said earlier that maternity services are in a mess.
I start with home births. They are not desired by all women, but a substantial number want home delivery—we do not know how many. The statistics for home births are at around 2 per cent, but that does not tell anything like the full story. The Association for Improvements in Maternity Services has repotted many instances of women being pushed into hospital delivery, usually at a very late stage in pregnancy, because they are told that no midwife will be available to support a home delivery. Those women have been denied real choice and have lost control of their birth arrangements. Some parts of the country achieve home birth rates of 12 per cent, or occasionally even more. One can deduce from that that unmet demand is at least 10 per cent. It is clear that in home births, choice and control for women is simply not happening.
We have heard from many people this evening that pregnancy and childbirth are not illnesses: they are part of normal human life. Yet maternity services have developed around a different concept. I mean no disrespect to the medical profession, and in particular to obstetricians, when I say that the medicalisation of pregnancy and childbirth is part of today's problems.
Of course we are proud of the low level of our maternal, neonatal and perinatal mortality rates, which are so much lower than when many of your Lordships were children. However, as an article in the British Medical Journal last April pointed out, these improvements are attributable to many causes. The article said:
"it cannot be assumed that access to obstetric care … has invariably had beneficial effects".
We have to be concerned about increased medicalisation and consequent decreases in normal births, by which I mean straightforward vaginal births without intervention.
292
Several noble Lords have already referred to caesarean rates, which are frighteningly high and still rising. They are well above the WHO's bench-mark level. The variations around the country that 'we have also heard about are even more worrying. Every unnecessary caesarean carries with it a raft of potential problems for both mother and child. My noble friend Lady Cumberlege and the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, both referred to the Audit Commission's estimate back in 1997 that for every 1 per cent of unnecessary caesareans, there is a cost to the NHS of around £5 million. Rolling that forward to today's prices, it is probably nearer £7 million. I have heard no recognition from the Government that this is a serious problem for which practical and urgent solutions are necessary.
Caesarean sections are not the only issue. There are other aspects of increased medicalisation, including instrumental deliveries and rates of anaesthesia and of episiotomies. As my noble friend Lady Cumberlege pointed out, some interventions tend to lead to more interventions, which makes the problem worse. It is clear that the rate of normal births is declining. That is not what women want or deserve.
What problems lie behind these features of modern maternity services? The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists will say that there are not enough senior obstetricians available and that this will get worse as the Working Time Directive takes hold. We have heard from my noble friend Lady Perry of the related problems for obstetricians.
That may well be part of the problem, but a much more serious problem is that from the perspective of the Royal College of Midwives. Many noble Lords have referred to the severe shortage of midwives. The noble Lord, Lord Chan, referred to the 2002 survey by the Royal College of Midwives, which shows the highest vacancy rate against funded establishment that the college has recorded since it started its surveys. It also shows great disparities around the country. We know that some areas of London operate at near crisis level. Perhaps more importantly, in the survey, 70 per cent reported that their funded establishments were too low to meet the demands of today's maternity services.
The midwifery shortages identified by so many noble Lords are very important because they reduce the prospects for continuity of care, which many noble Lords have explained is a crucial part of achieving normal births and high levels of patient satisfaction. We need more midwives if we are to improve the prospect of real choices being available to women—choices such as home births, but also births in other settings.
The shortages in midwifery are imposing massive burdens on remaining midwifery staff. That leads to the inevitable loss of staff morale and causes further midwives to choose to leave the profession. We cannot afford that. We will need more midwives if there are to be more community-based maternity services and more midwife-led maternity units. It is through those routes, backed up by appropriate acute services and

293
service delivery protocols, that maternity services will be able to start to deliver the policy aims of women-centred services.
The Minister will be aware that community-based and midwife-led maternity services are "win-win" services. Studies have shown their popularity with women. More than that, studies show that they cost less and have outcomes at least no worse than acute-based services. Will he say what proportion of maternity services are currently midwife-led in England and, similarly, what proportion are community-based? Does he agree that those aspects of maternity care should be given priority in funding service delivery? Is he satisfied that primary care trusts give adequate priority to them in drawing up their commissioning plans? Is he satisfied that PCTs adequately consult users of maternity services when they draw up their plans? I hope that he will not be complacent on the matter, and will be able to set out what proactive steps the Government will take.
Many of the problems keep coming back to the shortage of midwives. The Minister will say that the Government have the target of a further 2,000 midwives by 2005. Early last year, a Health Minister in another place said that there would be an extra 500 in place by the end of 2002. Will the noble Lord say how many midwives there are currently and how many there were in 1997 —not just in terms of head count, but in terms of whole-time equivalents? What matters is not the number of midwives, but the amount of time cumulatively that they can contribute to maternity services. In particular, the problem with targeting returners is that they often come back into part-time work, so simply adding heads will not solve the problems. The figure that I have for whole-time equivalents is 18,050 at the end of 1997, and again in 2001. Will the Minister confirm those figures? Will he say whether there is any increase at all in that in 2002?
In May 2001, the Secretary of State for Health promised a national service framework for children and maternity services including, to use his phrase, "a gold standard" of a dedicated midwife 100 per cent of the time in labour, and choices for all women including home birth. That framework was promised by the end of 2002, but has not yet seen the light of day. As we have heard, Scotland and Northern Ireland are already ahead of us. Will the Minister say when the framework will appear? Will he confirm that it will include the two matters that I have just mentioned, which were 100 per cent dedicated midwife cover, and more choice including home birth? Will that framework promote normality in childbirth in the hope of offsetting the trends that have happened in our maternity services recently? I look forward to the Minister's reply.
8.28 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, on securing the debate. It is some time since we had one on maternity services, and the debate
294
has been helpful and has raised a number of very important matters on which we need to make progress. As other noble Lords have mentioned, she played the key role in Changing Childbirth. She knows that, when the report was published, I gave it warm and wholehearted support. The Government, of course, remain committed to the principle of establishing a high-quality woman-centred maternity service.
I was looking for some optimistic signs in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, but she was rather bleak about some of the outcomes that she thought had been achieved since her report was published. One can identify considerable signs of progress, although they are not as consistent throughout the NHS as she and I would have wished. However, that is progress none the less. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, was very cheery in that respect.
There are examples of fundamental changes. Information and communication to women have improved considerably over the past decade; there is more discussion with women about aspects of their pregnancy care; there is more emphasis on women seeing a smaller number of midwives; and many women carry their own notes. I am not in the least complacent; we need to confront some difficult issues. However, we should not underestimate some of the progress that has been achieved.
On strategic leadership—the fundamental issue of what strategy we have and how we are going to take it forward—the key decision has been mentioned by various noble Lords; that is, the announcement of the children's national service framework in February 2001, including maternity services. In the new architecture of the NHS the setting of national standards through the national service frameworks is just about the most effective way of ensuring consistency of service provision and quality in what is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, suggested, a devolved healthcare system.
We have debated the balance between devolution and central direction. It is interesting that the Audit Commission report, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, found in 1997 that, despite the impetus that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, gave to the Changing Childbirth report, there was very patchy implementation. I am convinced that if we wish to achieve the right balance between wishing to have national standards, which is absolutely right, and giving room for the service to breathe at local level, the development of the NSF is undoubtedly the way forward. The aim is to set national standards of care and to look at how maternity services can be more flexible, accessible and appropriate. It will also pick up the issue of the commissioning of maternity services and the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chan, about establishing the network of maternity services, whether that involves primary, secondary or tertiary care. He rightly pointed to the need for an integrated approach.

295
We have formed a maternity external working group to advise on the development of the NSF. Appropriately, it is co-chaired by Heather Mellows, the junior vice-president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and by Meryl Thomas, who is vice-president of the Royal College of Midwives. The work of that advisory group is being taken forward through five sub-groups. In a sense, the pathway of those sub-groups covers the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, about what she wished to be covered, starting with pre-birth and involving birth.
I accept the points about home births. My understanding is that the figures have risen from 1 per cent in the 1980s to about 3 per cent, according to the latest data for 2000–01. I recognise that many more women would have wanted a home birth but that circumstances made that difficult. Undoubtedly, the NSF will need to look at that. It will need to consider post-birth and baby support.
The points raised about inequalities will also be covered in the national service framework. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was right about breast-feeding. The statistics are overwhelming in indicating a huge variation between the different social and ethnic groups in this country. That matter has to be addressed. I shall come later to the issue of caesarean rates, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Chan, suggested, those rates also indicate that some of the same issues arise.
The NSF will also look at the question of user involvement, which I recognise as extremely important. Indeed, as part of the work of preparing and developing the NSF, today my department held a discussion with midwives and users about the experience and relevance of the maternity services liaison committee. I was able to visit the committee for about an hour and to listen to some feedback. Some very interesting ideas were put forward with regard to good practice and the effectiveness of some maternity services liaison committees. Reports of committees feeling that they did not have sufficient support to make an impact were also mentioned.
There is no doubt that the ability of the national service framework to allow us to set national standards and frameworks for the future will be critically important. We shall want them to explore some of the areas to which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred. The noble Lord made some interesting remarks about how one dealt with particularly vulnerable parents—often young parents. I believe that the initiatives that we have taken in Sure Start plus show some of the ways forward, but we shall need to pick up the points raised by the noble Lord.
We want to explore all the areas which we know are important to women: a safe birth which is as normal as possible; a choice of place of birth, with home birth as a realistic option; appropriate support for women in labour and the feasibility of one-to-one care; improving the support and advice that women need when they are making decisions about how they are going to feed their babies—I very much accept the
296
need to ensure that the benefits of breast milk are widely known—and the provision of appropriate information, presented in a variety of formats, to assist women and their families to make those decisions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is always asking me when we are going to publish reports. The first module of the national service framework covering children in hospital will be published shortly. The other modules will follow. I cannot give a precise date for the maternity service module, but obviously I hope that it will be as soon as possible. However, clearly it will take time to ensure that it is as thorough as we would all like it to be.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Patel, asked about one-to-one care by midwives. We have already said that that is our aim. The gold standard should be that every woman has access to one-to-one care. It is intended that the children's national service framework will set out how best we can achieve that gold standard and that it will give a timetable for doing so.
The evidence that we have from the midwifery practice audit report for 2000–01 of the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting is that the percentage of units not able to provide one-to-one midwifery care to each woman in labour reduced from 28 per cent in 1999 to 22 per cent in 2000; in other words, 78 per cent provide one-to-one care to all women in labour. However, we shall look for further guidance on that from the national service framework.
The national service framework will consider the examples of good practice mentioned in tonight's debate. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked about the Albany practice. Of course, we shall be very interested to know of the experience of that practice and of other examples of good practice.
Before I deal with a number of specific issues which have been raised, I say to the noble Lords, Lord Chan and Lord Patel, that I recognise very clearly the issue of litigation. It goes somewhat wider than the maternity services module of the children's national service framework. But anyone looking at experience in the NHS at the moment has to be concerned about the cost of litigation, and, even more so, whether it leads to defensive medical practice. We are looking seriously at what we need to do to ensure that we move away from some of the current difficulties.
Despite a litany of gloom tonight there are encouraging signs of improvement. I am surprised that no noble Lord mentioned the £100 million capital allocation we have made to over 200 maternity units to modernise the environment. The money that has gone to the service has ranged from large to small sums, but it has all helped to improve the environment.
Good as that is, there is no question that unless we have enough midwives we are not going to get very far. All noble Lords have raised this question. There is no doubt that a great deal of work has to be done to get recruitment and retention up to the standard that we wish to see. We are offering more places for students to train as midwives. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady

297
Perry, that compared with 1997 there are 226 more training places available. As regards the number of midwives, there has been an increase since 1997 of about 700, although the figures quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, are also correct. That shows that we have to increase the effort in co-ordinating a recruitment, retention and return to practice strategy.
As regards the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that funding establishments are too few, we are supporting the use of what is described as birthrate plus, which is an excellent workforce planning tool. Many trusts are now using it. I hope that that will lead them to a more realistic assessment of the number of midwives required.
But if we recruit and train enough of them, we have to retain them. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, discussed why it is that midwives leave the profession. I say clearly that we do not want midwives to feel that they are either de-skilled or unable to provide the care that they wish in all settings. I echo the wishes of noble Lords for midwives to have professional autonomy, to feel confident in their skills and to be in a position to promote normal birth. I am sure that that is the key to answering the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, as to how we should promote normal births. I am convinced that the key is in the autonomy and support that midwives are given, supported by appropriate midwifery leadership in management and with the continued appointment of consultant midwives with responsibility for giving clinical support.
I agree that the more women receive care from a midwife they know the better the care. The issue of one-to-one midwifery is tied up with the recruitment of more midwives into the National Health Service.
The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, applauded the appointment of consultant midwives and then regretted that that meant they were diverted from management and teaching tasks. We have 32 consultant midwives and they are doing excellent work. I believe that our ability to reward high calibre people to stay in practice is excellent. We need more than 32 consultant midwives. As regards teaching, I am very exercised about that, not for midwifery but for clinicians and nurses. It is an issue that we continue to discuss. Between the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills a number of new strategies have been launched. But in light of what the noble Baroness has said, I shall ensure that the midwifery teaching issue is picked up.
On management, I could not agree more with the need to ensure that we have strong midwifery management. We know that we have to do more to help heads of midwifery make as big an impact as they can within their local organisations. The Leadership Centre is exercised in ensuring that we do that. In relation to addressing the group of people that I met today within the national service framework, I have said to my officials that we need to think clearly about
298
how we can help heads of midwifery make more impact when it comes to the trusts' boards making the right decisions for the development of services.
That issue is a common one between two governments. I do not believe that we have yet found a way of carrying that out as effectively as possible. I am absolutely sure that having good, strong head-midwifery leadership within each NHS trust is absolutely critical to achieving the right qualities at the local level.
I turn to medical workforce issues. I know that there are concerns in that area. The number of consultant obstetricians and gynaecologists in post has increased by 21 per cent over the past five years, but currently with the college we are exploring expanding the number of consultants.
The European working time directive has been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and other noble Lords. It is a major challenge. There is no question about that. We produced a circular on implementing the directive only eight or nine days ago. We have a programme of pilot projects in NHS trusts to develop and to test innovative solutions. There is no doubt that that will pose significant challenges on the National Health Service.
That brings us to the issue of configuration. We know that a combination of service and workforce development is having a major impact on the configuration of maternity services. Pressures such as the drive for improved safety, more efficient use of resources, better medical training and the directive have often tended towards greater concentration of services on to a smaller number of sites. But those pressures have to be balanced against local access to services and—particularly in maternity—promotion of normal pregnancies and births without unnecessary intervention.
I have no doubt whatever that we have to achieve the correct balance. I say that as someone who a year or so ago had to deal with the issue of the Hemel Hempstead maternity service, where we were faced with agonising decisions. There is no doubt that we must achieve effective configuration to gain the correct balance. We cannot allow a headway drive into centralisation to undermine so many of the units that are currently in place.
I was asked about the Maternity and Neonatal Workforce Group and when the report will be published. It will be published shortly and it will be taken forward. In the department we are also developing a configuring hospitals project which is picking up those issues, not just in relation to maternity services but in relation to the broader issue of configuration. It will also look at the particular focus of the challenges facing smaller hospitals and at creative options to ensure that the headlong rush into centralisation is not always inevitable.
Of course, I recognise the value of birthing centres and the value of midwifery-led units. I hope that the national service framework will enable us to explore those options and to encourage them further in the future.

299
On Malmesbury and Devizes, I am assured by the PCT that it aims to modernise services and that no decisions will be made without public consultation. I shall keep an eye on that matter in the light of the comments that have been raised today.
I cannot finish without turning to the issue of medical intervention and caesarean section rates. I accept that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is right to say that the medical interventions taking place do not just cover caesarean sections. The reasons for their increase are complex. Over the past 20 years, technical advances have enabled obstetricians and midwives to identify complications at a much earlier stage, so that appropriate interventions that improve clinical outcomes can take place.
If noble Lords are asking me to say whether I am concerned about the current rates, I am and always have been concerned about them. I have made no secret of that. None of us can say that all caesarean sections are unnecessary. Sometimes they are very necessary. I am also aware of the variations between different parts of the country. However, the absolute evidence needed to draw hard conclusions is not available. That is why we have commissioned the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists to undertake the largest ever national sentinel audit.
The initial result of that audit has provided valuable data. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, raised the question of choice. That audit showed that 7 per cent of caesarean sections are performed at the request of women. This is a very difficult issue. I do not pretend to have any easy answers to it.
The issue of choice has been raised. It is important, but decisions have to be made by well-informed women with the appropriate unbiased information and in the light of the best clinical evidence available. All interventions must be based on sound evidence. I agree with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, on the matter. That is why we have asked the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to develop guidelines for some of the most used interventions, including caesarean sections.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, invited me to set targets for reductions in caesarean rates. She usually tells me that I set too many targets for the health service. I understand why she should want me to do this.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I did not use the word "targets" in my speech. I asked what action the Government are taking to reduce the numbers of sections and, as a result of their actions, when they expect to see a decline in the rate.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. I think that another noble Lord picked up her point and suggested targets. I understand why some noble Lords think that targets would be appropriate. I do not think that I can respond directly to that issue until we have the results of the NICE clinical guidelines. At that point one would then think about the strategies needed to reduce
300
caesarean sections, if, in the light of the work undertaken by NICE, that is considered appropriate. But if noble Lords are asking me whether I have concerns about the current situation, I do have concerns about it.
The noble Baroness raised the point about the World Health Organisation. We have all used the figures of 5 per cent to 15 per cent. My understanding is that the World Health Organisation is now looking again at those issues. That will be helpful and it is to be hoped that, if done quickly, it will inform the work that we also need to take forward.
In the time available I have not answered every point, but I hope that I have convinced noble Lords that I, together with the Government, am not at all complacent about the big issues that face maternity services in this country. I believe that great progress has been made during the past few years. I again commend the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for her outstanding work.
I believe that recruitment and retention strategies for midwives, the issue of leadership, the work of the national service framework and the work that we are doing with users will combine together to give us the national cohesive strategy that we all agree needs to be developed. It will be very much informed by the comments made and the points raised in this debate. I assure your Lordships that I will ensure that they are conveyed to those who are leading the national service framework.
8.55 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should like to conclude this debate by thanking all noble Lords who have taken part. It has been a wise and interesting debate that has highlighted the great strengths of this House. In particular, I thank the Minister for his full response to the vast majority of our questions. There is no doubt about his personal commitment to the matter, and I thank him for that.
I welcome the introduction of maternity into the national service framework for children. That is an excellent move. I advocate speed on that, because the situation in the country is changing fast. Your Lordships have been enormously generous to me in this debate, and I thank you for that, but I want the Government to produce a maternity policy all its own. I want to see the son and daughter of Changing Childbirth, because it is when the Government embrace their own policies that we shall experience a real difference. People have been so generous and nice—not only in this Chamber but throughout the country—about the work that I did. But that was 10 years ago. Life has moved on and it is time that the Government put some strong political will behind the issue and improved the lot of women and children in this country. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at three minutes to nine o'clock.

  Iran: Arms Embargo
  Iran: Arms Embargo
  National Criminal Intelligence Service
  National Criminal Intelligence Service
  Exmoor:Deer Conservation
  Exmoor:Deer Conservation
  DfES:Staffing
  DfES:Staffing
  NHS Foundation Trusts
  NHS Foundation Trusts
  Northern Ireland Implementation Bodies: Pension Provision
  Northern Ireland Implementation Bodies: Pension Provision
  Teaching Qualifications
  Teaching Qualifications
  Northern Ireland Ambulance Service
  Northern Ireland Ambulance Service
  Northern Ireland:National Museums and Galleries
  Northern Ireland:National Museums and Galleries
  Northern Ireland Office:Parliamentary Questions
  Northern Ireland Office:Parliamentary Questions